From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 13 3:28:34 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3AC37B745; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 03:28:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f2DBQZD14553; Tue, 13 Mar 2001 03:26:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 03:26:35 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Mars Attack Cc: Soren Schmidt , Peter Wemm , Mike Meyer , Helge Oldach , oberman@es.net, mobile@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Disk I/O problem in 4.3-BETA Message-ID: <20010313032635.Q29888@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200103131007.f2DA73h54023@mobile.wemm.org> <01f001c0abaa$133e1680$4500a8c0@nomad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <01f001c0abaa$133e1680$4500a8c0@nomad>; from marsattack@cannoncreek.com on Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 06:40:46PM +0800 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Mars Attack [010313 02:18] wrote: > Geez, this thread is getting longer and all the more confusing, can some > guru possibly attempt to outline the good and bad points of Softupdates or > WC ? 1) softupdates good 2) WC bad (even when not using softupdates) Basically, softupdates doesn't really matter, as long as you have write caching turned on, you're defeating the safeness of FFS (noasync) and FFS (softdep) by allowing the disk to reorder what should be ordered writes. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Daemon News Magazine in your snail-mail! http://magazine.daemonnews.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message