Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 03:53:42 -0600 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Initial performance testing w/ postmark & softupdates... Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20000219035342.009ce460@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10002181507120.1712-100000@shell.uniserve.ca > References: <38ACAF8B.65E314E9@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:08 PM 2/18/00 -0800, Tom wrote: >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. As fast, but not safer. Can't recall the entire analogy, but Terry mentioned on -hacker a long time back something to the effect that softupdates is like having a seatbelt and an airbag rather than just a seatbelt, as well as a faster car too. Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve 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?3.0.3.32.20000219035342.009ce460>