From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jan 31 0:46:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from apache.metrocom.ru (www.metrocom.ru [195.5.128.139]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D56FD37B416 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:46:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from apache.metrocom.ru (apache.metrocom.ru [195.5.128.150]) by apache.metrocom.ru (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g0V8jA7c005344 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:45:11 +0300 (MSK) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:45:10 +0300 (MSK) From: Varshavchick Alexander To: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Softupdates In-Reply-To: <20020131021257.193F44078@i8k.babbleon.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi people, now after this discussion about softupdates let's try summing up things a little. We're talking about a productive boxes where risk of losing data should be minimal (but of cause the speed is also important). There seems to be the following main conclusions: 1. Softupdates by themselves are not too risky; 2. Write caching should be better turned off in this case; 3. For the SCSI drives it can be considered enabling write caching. But in any case all these trouble cannot be suffered for nothing, we're hoping to get improvements in speed or anything in the end. So the question is has any of you any practical experience as for the effect which was gained? Are the softupdates really that usefull in real life, and what we lose in speed if we turn off write caching as was suggested? So is the speed/reliability ratio worth trying it? Alexander Varshavchick, Metrocom Joint Stock Company Phone: (812)118-3322, 118-3115(fax) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message