From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Jul 24 8:13:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from snafu.adept.org (snafu.adept.org [63.201.63.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE67437B406 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@adept.org) Received: by snafu.adept.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3F9B9EE06; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snafu.adept.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14859B00C; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:12:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Hoskins To: Mike Tancsa Cc: Sung Nae Cho , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Regarding hw.ata.wc="1"...... In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010724103842.064dde20@marble.sentex.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Mike Tancsa wrote: > to take. Yes, writes will be faster with write caching enabled. However, > its that much more risky incase of power loss. > disabled by default. However, it was turned back on as a default a little > later. Hmm. I hope the response to recent performance tests was /not/ to make a potentially unsafe option 'default'. Sometimes 'faster' isn't better - anyone with a brain knows that, right? Try replacing an overloaded VAX with a nice x86 box and watch it run fast at first, then die smoking under load (humorous story from college days ;)... You get my point. Later, -Mike -- Log analysis mailing list: http://www.adept.org/mailinglists.html#logwatchers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message