From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 21 00:31:04 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE8C16A41A for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:31:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=VL66=MT=FreeBSD.org=se@srs.kundenserver.de) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD4313C468 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=VL66=MT=FreeBSD.org=se@srs.kundenserver.de) Received: from [80.135.167.244] (helo=[192.168.0.12]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0MKwtQ-1IC2er3Vg7-0006sj; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:17:21 +0200 Message-ID: <46A15086.2060505@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:17:10 +0200 From: Stefan Esser User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: <20070720185101.F20123@mp2.macomnet.net> <46A0D313.8010904@delphij.net> <20070720192830.C20123@mp2.macomnet.net> <46A13A10.8070108@FreeBSD.org> <46A1410F.3080703@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <46A1410F.3080703@elischer.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19ib/9W28zJNFmk+X3QOvDdCCWX8l5qlDgFp06 14sOb9em7AGcN0HQvwVdamKXpQsLUod7LuYELRy/xxvlxlgfKv jGWSUTJd1tdfW0bYtO6sw== Cc: Xin LI , hackers@freebsd.org, Stefan Esser Subject: Re: tunefs.8 oddity X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:31:04 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > Stefan Esser wrote: >> Maxim Konovalov wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, 23:21+0800, Xin LI wrote: >>>> Any chance that we resolve the bug instead of documenting it? :-) >>>> >>> Personally, I have no energy/time for that. It was documented for >>> ages, it is still documented in other BSDs. >> >> It has long ago been converted to a mount option instead of a >> tunefs command in NetBSD. My FreeBSD systems are patched that >> way since shortly after soft-updates was committed (long before >> it became available in NetBSD, IIRC); I have not checked whether >> they used the (very simple) patches I had posted at that time. >> >> Controlling soft-updates during mount has many advantages (not >> only if you decide to enable it on a root file-system that had >> been created without it) and no disadvantages. >> > > As the person who added this originally on behalf of Kirk, > I think the time for this has probably come. > I think even Kirk has said this might now make sense but I'd check > with him first. I had asked him and he replied that the mount option was better. But when I discussed this in a FreeBSD list, there was strong opposition and it was claimed, that sysinstall took care of it in such a way, that the users would not miss the mount option. I had strong arguments in favour of the mount option, but since there were different opinions that were strongly voiced, I just gave up and maintained the changes locally to this day. The arguments (of both sides) can be found in the mail archives. I think this change should have been made long before 7.0 (it could have been in 5.0 without problems). But I guess that ZFS will attract many previous UFS2/soft-updates users (I have converted most of my systems to ZFS with quite satisfactory results and could now live without soft-updates) and that the relevance of soft-updates will shrink for that reason. So if it is not changed in 7.0, I won't keep my local patches, since there will be no UFS file system on my systems (I'm using a ZFS root partition and have only a UFS boot partition). Regards, STefan