From owner-freebsd-questions  Sat Dec  2 15:43:03 1995
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA15994
          for questions-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 15:43:03 -0800
Received: (from dyson@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA15965
          ; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 15:42:50 -0800
From: John Dyson <dyson>
Message-Id: <199512022342.PAA15965@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Help!!!!
To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert)
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 15:42:46 -0800 (PST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, alexandr@louie.udel.edu, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199512022305.QAA06536@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Dec 2, 95 04:05:57 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1129      
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> My problem with this whole thing is that the "async 'fixes'" appear
> to be related to the problem (who knows? It might be tickling a
> dormant compiler bug, etc.), and are really not rationally justified
> except as a method of putting some bogus Linux benchmarks to rest.
> 
Also, the async code does run faster for massive file create/delete
operations.  It DOES have a real purpose.  (Filesystem restores run
much much much faster as an very practical example.)
>
> They were (and remain) reactive to what I believe to be a non-problem,
> at best, and they are circumstantially related to a large number of
> problems that didn't exist prior to their commit date, at worst.
> 
Why then even make an association (you, representing an "expert" opinion),
when the cause/effect is not clear -- in fact *very* unclear.  All I ask
is that if you make such statements, please make sure that you are not
causing undue pressure or work in a fruitless direction.  If and when
I describe what is happening -- it will be accurate.  If you make such
an association, I would hope that you would do the same!!!

John
dyson@freebsd.org