From owner-freebsd-questions Thu May 24 15:31: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from itouch.co.nz (itouch.co.nz [203.99.66.188]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BD937B423 for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 15:30:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jonc@itouch.co.nz) Received: (from jonc@localhost) by itouch.co.nz (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f4OMUM541917; Fri, 25 May 2001 10:30:22 +1200 (NZST) (envelope-from jonc) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 10:30:21 +1200 From: Jonathan Chen To: Bill Moran Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Remount Filesystems Message-ID: <20010525103021.B40969@itouchnz.itouch> References: <20010525094056.B37339@itouchnz.itouch> <3B0D8A80.596CC3B7@iowna.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3B0D8A80.596CC3B7@iowna.com>; from wmoran@iowna.com on Thu, May 24, 2001 at 06:26:09PM -0400 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 On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 06:26:09PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: [...] > I don't understand why you'd bother with softupdates on / anyway? Just > from my perspective, I try to keep the / fs as reliable as possible and, > although softupdates is very reliable, it does have a slightly higher > incidence of crash corruption than standard sync. Really? My understanding of softupdates was that it keeps that metadata in a more stable state, and thus makes your filesystem *less* prone to fsck problems. Otherwise, why would anyone want to enable softupdates on a production system? Cheers. -- Jonathan Chen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message