From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Oct 5 15:40:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from ultra.comspace.com (209-16-25-2.insync.net [209.16.25.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3814937B503 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from danield (cs16255-51.houston.rr.com [24.162.55.51]) by ultra.comspace.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08192 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:40:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <03d601c02f1c$2fa1da60$cd2710d1@comspace.com> From: "Daniel Domengeaux" To: References: Subject: OT: softupdates (was Re: df -k) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:32:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > BUT... keeping in mind that the best thing about Unix-like OSes is > their flexibility, the free space can be changed. man tunefs for your > options, but remember that if you want more space, you'll get less > speed. You want more speed from tunefs? You get less space. > Personally, I'd recommend leaving it alone. Softupdates gives enough > of a performance boost without eating up disk space... just my two > cents. > -Otter i enabled softupdates a few days ago and have noticed a slight increase in performance but am just curious to know if anyone has any benchmarks actually showing the difference between having them enabled and not. -daniel To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message