Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 10:35:14 +0200 (CEST) From: wolfgang@lyxys.ka.sub.org (Wolfgang Zenker) To: Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki@mediaone.net> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What's the conclusion? (was soft update should be default) Message-ID: <m14x2xf-003pRhC@lyxys.ka.sub.org> In-Reply-To: <20010508010236.30ada34b.tadayuki@mediaone.net> "from Tadayuki OKADA at May 8, 2001 01:02:36 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > > > 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? softupdates has a problem if you replace lots of files on small filesystems. If you delete a file on a file system with soft updates enabled, the free space is committed back to the file system only some time later. Now if you run a installworld with default slice sizes you could run into problems cause the replaced files still take up room on your disk for some time while you need the space for your new files. Wolfgang 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?m14x2xf-003pRhC>