From owner-freebsd-current Wed Oct 6 18:19:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B0A815089 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:19:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id SAA90021; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:19:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:19:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199910070119.SAA90021@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" Cc: Peter Jeremy , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: {a}sync updates (was Re: make install trick) References: <99Oct6.103524est.40351@border.alcanet.com.au> <99Oct6.145359est.40347@border.alcanet.com.au> <19991006154419.O20768@futuresouth.com> <99Oct7.085536est.40332@border.alcanet.com.au> <19991006181542.S20768@futuresouth.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :mount(8): : sync All I/O to the file system should be done synchronously. : :On the gripping hand, you can say, 'this is an ATIME update, there's no :way its presence or lack thereof can do anything bad to the filesystem, :so let it be async since it takes extra work to make it sync'. : :Does anyone have any feeling either way on this? I, unfortunately, seem :to have strong feelings BOTH ways... sync atime updates will slow it :down, but on the flip side, if you're mounting sync in the first place :you don't care much for speed anyway. : :Thoughts? :Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Well, you don't gain anything by making atime updates sync, and you lose a lot, so why do it? If you are worried about protecting the root drive from a crash, mount it read-only (and put /dev on an MFS mount) or mount it noatime. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message