From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 20 20:27:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C520A153DB for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:27:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:27:55 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: , "FreeBSD Stable" Subject: RE: SOFTUPDATES Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:27:55 -0800 Message-ID: <000001bf4b6b$c07acb40$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <385EFAEF.5F286795@home.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Is anyone running the SOFTUPDATES option with Stable? I just enabled it > and was wondering if there are any issues I should be aware of > performance wise. Any problems? I enabled it for the /usr > filesystem. Any reason why / is not specifically recommended? I've been quite happy with softupdates on my STABLE machines. I see the biggest performance improvements in file extractions from tarballs. Enabling softupdates on / is not recommended primarily because that filesystem is not frequently written to. Another reason not to enable softupdates on / is that you may not have enough free space to do a 'make world' (softupdates delays the returning of empty space to the filesystem). One final reason is possible increased risk. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message