From owner-freebsd-advocacy  Thu Jun 14 12:20: 0 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CE38E37B40B; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr)
Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-b026.otenet.gr [195.167.121.154])
	by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5EJJp608734;
	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:19:51 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from charon@localhost)
	by hades.hell.gr (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5EJAX585641;
	Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:10:33 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:10:33 +0300
From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: Don Wilde <Don@Silver-Lynx.com>,
	Szilveszter Adam <sziszi@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu>,
	freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: An interesting read...
Message-ID: <20010614221032.A85523@hades.hell.gr>
References: <3B28C42D.3278A85A@Silver-Lynx.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010614131515.27518H-100000@fledge.watson.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010614131515.27518H-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:16:55PM -0400
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3A 75 52 EB F1 58 56 0D - C5 B8 21 B6 1B 5E 4A C2
X-URL: http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~keramida/index.html
Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-advocacy.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-advocacy>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-advocacy>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:16:55PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:

> One of the frequent responses to poor performance results on FreeBSD is
> "Why don't you turn on soft updates?".  I think a fair answer to that is
> "Well, it wasn't on by default."  What is our current argument against
> having soft updates on by default, with the exception of the root file
> system (and instability on -CURRENT)?

I vaguely recall a discussion of this very same thing in one of the
freebsd lists, and the most important argument against having
softupdates enabled by default on all filesystems (or all, except
root; small difference) was that this way we would be sacrifizing part
of the reliability of a 'default installation'.

-giorgos

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message