Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 14:25:10 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Softupdates a mount option? Message-ID: <40B5DE26.4040901@fer.hr> In-Reply-To: <20040527120819.B8434@gamplex.bde.org> References: <40B4ECC8.50808@fer.hr> <20040526202849.GA37162@freebie.xs4all.nl> <40B519DA.7000708@fer.hr> <20040527120819.B8434@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote:
> 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
Then maybe the default should be changed?
From 'man mdmfs':
By default, mdmfs creates a swap-based (MD_SWAP) disk with soft-updates
enabled and mounts it on mount-point.
> 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).
Yup, I noticed :(
*sigh*
--
Every sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology
- Arthur C Anticlarke
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40B5DE26.4040901>