From owner-freebsd-stable Mon May 7 21:52:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC9737B422; Mon, 7 May 2001 21:52:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tadayuki@mediaone.net) Received: from photoniii (h0005025b549e.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.67.188]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f484qDx29482; Tue, 8 May 2001 00:52:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 01:02:36 -0400 From: Tadayuki OKADA 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> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.4.64 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--freebsd4.3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 04 May 2001 18:42:54 -0700 Mike Smith 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