From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 20 20:46:10 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from point.osg.gov.bc.ca (point.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.102.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD351536E for ; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:46:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cy@cschuber.net.gov.bc.ca) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by point.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) id UAA24594; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:46:02 -0800 Received: from passer.osg.gov.bc.ca(142.32.110.29), claiming to be "cwsys.cwsent.com" via SMTP by point.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpda24592; Mon Dec 20 20:45:50 1999 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cwsys.cwsent.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id UAA55672; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:45:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912210445.UAA55672@cwsys.cwsent.com> Received: from localhost.cwsent.com(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "cwsys" via SMTP by localhost.cwsent.com, id smtpdF55276; Mon Dec 20 20:45:23 1999 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group X-OS: FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE X-Sender: cy To: "David Schwartz" Cc: tsikora@powerusersbbs.com, "FreeBSD Stable" Subject: Re: SOFTUPDATES In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:27:55 PST." <000001bf4b6b$c07acb40$021d85d1@youwant.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:45:22 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <000001bf4b6b$c07acb40$021d85d1@youwant.to>, "David Schwartz" writes : > > > 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. I've enabled softupdates on / (/ being a 750 MB filesystem, about 60% full, containing /, /usr, and /var) on a couple machines at work. I also use softupdates on one of my machines at home, however on that system I do not use softupdates on / and /usr (on different disks) because they're hardly written to. I've had no problems with data integrity or system availability due to softupdates (knock on wood). Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Sun/DEC Team, UNIX Group Internet: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca ITSD Province of BC "e**(i*pi)+1=0" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message