Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:11:38 +0100 From: Ken McKittrick <agent47@baldcom.net> To: Shawn Ramsey <shawn@luke.cpl.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: mount -o asynch = better performance ??????? Message-ID: <v03102809b017e0cc04e6@[205.232.46.109]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970813193414.2918A-100000@luke.cpl.net> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970813184359.1207A-100000@acp.qiv.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >But, my main question -> I think FreeBSD is that slow because it writes
>> >everything to disk directly, without a good cache. Why is this like it is?
>> >This does not make FreeBSD very attractive for me to use as a fileserver
>> >(nfs or samba) or e.g. a mail server.
>
>Do be fair, I think you should mount the FreeBSd disks asyncronously. By
>default, it is set to Synchronously. Linux, at least it used to be this
>way, is mounted asynch. Disk access is HUGELY increases under FreeBSD if
>it is set to asynch. (mount -o async /dev/filesystem)
The man pages on mount state the using an asynch mount is
quote:
async All I/O to the file system should be done asynchronously.
This is a dangerous flag to set, and should not be used
unless you are prepared to recreate the file system
should your system crash.
How reliable is a file system if it's mounted asynch really????
Thanks
Ken
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken McKittrick Unix SysAdmin, R & D guy
agent47@baldcom.net http://www.baldcom.net
http://zone.baldcom.net (315) 698-3400
"Virtute non Verbis" (Deeds not Words) 1/108th Mech Infantry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v03102809b017e0cc04e6>