Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 01:02:36 -0400 From: Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki@mediaone.net> To: stable@freebsd.org, msmith@freebsd.org Subject: What's the conclusion? (was soft update should be default) Message-ID: <20010508010236.30ada34b.tadayuki@mediaone.net> In-Reply-To: <200105050142.f451gsl05388@mass.dis.org> References: <20010504205142.1a7013e6.tadayuki@mediaone.net> <200105050142.f451gsl05388@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 04 May 2001 18:42:54 -0700 Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Why 'soft update' is not default? > > It adds performance and stability, doesn't it? > > It requires disabling of write caching, which typically reduces > performance (significantly). If this is the only problem, I think softupdates should be the default. Because: 'write caching' is not the default. Anyone who wants it can disable softupdates. Besides it seems 'write caching' is not recommended for the usual usage. If you have other resons not to do so, could you please explain it? -- Tadayuki OKADA To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010508010236.30ada34b.tadayuki>