From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 7 0:17:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E9D37B401 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f178CCB41628; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:12:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Greg Black Cc: Matt Dillon , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Feb 2001 18:09:10 +1000." Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 09:12:12 +0100 Message-ID: <41626.981533532@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Greg Black writes: >Matt Dillon wrote: > >> And, I would say, that for any mailer creating and deleting files in >> a spool directory at a high rate, *ONLY* a filesystem with softupdates >> turned on or a journaling filesystem such as XFS or ReiserFS can be >> considered crash-surviveable. Synchronous meta-data updates will not >> save you (EXT2FS or FFS without softupdates). > >It seems to me that you're saying that softupdates is now the >recommended way to go -- so why does 4.2-Release still have the >dire warnings in /sys/ufs/ffs/README.softupdates? Is that file >obsolete, or do the warnings still apply? I think that file is obsolete by now. I also think we should make newfs turn softupdates on by default in -current. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message