Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>