Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 12:18:38 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Cc: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: Softupdates a mount option? Message-ID: <20040527120819.B8434@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <40B519DA.7000708@fer.hr> References: <40B4ECC8.50808@fer.hr> <20040526202849.GA37162@freebie.xs4all.nl> <40B519DA.7000708@fer.hr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Ivan Voras wrote: > - I was creating a md drive with mdmfs, and it felt rather awkward to > control softupdates via command line parameters (a sidequestion: does it > make any sense enabling SU on a memory drive by default?). As it seems > now, every such utility that handles (well, at least creates) a ffs > filesystem must handle SU-controlling options as command line parameters. It makes sense to never enable soft updates on a memory drive, since soft updates uses extra CPU cycles to try to speed up i/o to real drives (and lately it doesn't seem to be very successful in doing the latter -- here it is now about the same speed as normal mounts for copying /usr/src but was 1.5 times faster a few years ago; async mounts are still 2.5 times faster). Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040527120819.B8434>