From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Feb 18 15: 8:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F6137BABA for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:08:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca ([204.244.186.218]) by mail2.uniserve.com with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 12LwVc-000KH7-00; Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:08:24 -0800 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:08:20 -0800 (PST) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: Brad Knowles , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates... In-Reply-To: <38ACAF8B.65E314E9@newsguy.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Tom wrote: > > > > Not really. You could just use async updates instead of softupdates. > > Or an OS that uses async updates. Write caching metadata is always faster > > than re-ordering it intelligently. > > Softupdates reduces the number of writes needed. It can coalesce writes > to the same block. Async updates are always as fast as softupdates, if not faster. You should read the softupdates docs. > -- > Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) > dcs@newsguy.com > dcs@freebsd.org > > "If you consider our help impolite, you should see the manager." Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message