Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 02:10:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: logix@foobar.franken.de (Harold Gutch) Cc: dwilde1@thuntek.net, kheuer@gwdu60.gwdg.de, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Linux PR firestorm disaster (w.r.t. FreeBSD) Message-ID: <199903030210.TAA01293@usr04.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <19990302184800.B4386@foobar.franken.de> from "Harold Gutch" at Mar 2, 99 06:48:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I saw a posting by Martin Cracauer to a German BSD-newsgroup a > couple of days ago, which can be summed up to "normal synchronous > writes (the 'classic' FreeBSD thing) are slow, asynchronous > writes (what Linux does) are dangerous - softupdates are a little > slower than asynchronous writes, but ensure the reliability of > synchronous writes. > > Is there some real good comparism of all the three, like in what > case you might lose data with each of the three possibilities > (according to that posting, there's a small chance of data-loss > with synchronous writes, so I guess that it's the same for > softupdates, too) and (rough) speed-comparisms of them ? http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/papers/CSE-TR-254-95/ Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903030210.TAA01293>