From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 7 2:20:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from nebula.cybercable.fr (d217.dhcp212-126.cybercable.fr [212.198.126.217]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA33F37B401 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:19:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from mux@localhost) by nebula.cybercable.fr (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f17AJrG00811; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:19:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mux) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:19:52 +0100 From: Maxime Henrion To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Matt Dillon , Greg Black Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Message-ID: <20010207111952.B484@nebula.cybercable.fr> References: <41626.981533532@critter> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <41626.981533532@critter>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:12:12AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , Greg Black writes: > >Matt Dillon wrote: > > > >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 I think that file is obsolete by now.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. What do you think of what NetBSD implemented ? softupdates is now enabled via a mount option. This seems cleaner than the tunefs -n enable thing. Maxime -- Don't be fooled by cheap finnish imitations ; BSD is the One True Code Key fingerprint = F9B6 1D5A 4963 331C 88FC CA6A AB50 1EF2 8CBE 99D6 Public Key : http://www.epita.fr/~henrio_m/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message