Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:33:16 -0500 From: "Benjamin Greenwald" <beng@lcs.mit.edu> To: "Joao Carlos Mendes Luis" <jonny@jonny.eng.br>, "Julian Elischer" <julian@whistle.com> Cc: <asami@cs.berkeley.edu>, <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: softupdates on / Message-ID: <199901282033.PAA22608@miris.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199901281951.RAA26420@roma.coe.ufrj.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The technical reason is a very simple one: the fsck algorithm is different
for softupdate partitions. Therefore, it has to be a tunefs option.
If you want more details, check the archives. There was a discusion on
exactly this topic a few months back in freebsd-current.
-Ben Greenwald
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Joao Carlos Mendes
Luis
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 2:52 PM
To: Julian Elischer
Cc: jonny@jonny.eng.br; asami@cs.berkeley.edu; stable@freebsd.org;
hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: softupdates on /
#define quoting(Julian Elischer)
// On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Joao Carlos Mendes Luis wrote:
// > Is there a strong reason for softupdates be a tunefs option, instead of
// > a mount option ? This could be easily solved by a
//
// kirk has convinsing arguments against it and "He's the man"
^^^^^^^^^
I got your point, but can you list these arguments ? If it's only "he
wants it this way, god only knows why", it's allright, but if there's
a technical reason, I'd like to know.
Thanks in advance,
Jonny
--
Joao Carlos Mendes Luis M.Sc. Student
jonny@jonny.eng.br Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
"This .sig is not meant to be politically correct."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901282033.PAA22608>