From owner-freebsd-stable Fri May 4 18: 5:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from chmod.ath.cx (CC2-861.charter-stl.com [24.217.115.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDAB137B43C for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 18:05:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ajh3@chmod.ath.cx) Received: by chmod.ath.cx (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 13EFBA876; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:04:43 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 20:04:43 -0500 From: Andrew Hesford To: Tadayuki OKADA Cc: stable Subject: Re: soft update should be default Message-ID: <20010504200443.A20673@cec.wustl.edu> References: <20010504205142.1a7013e6.tadayuki@mediaone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010504205142.1a7013e6.tadayuki@mediaone.net>; from tadayuki@mediaone.net on Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:51:42PM -0400 X-Loop: Andrew Hesford Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:51:42PM -0400, Tadayuki OKADA wrote: > Hi, > > Why 'soft update' is not default? > It adds performance and stability, doesn't it? > > Is there any reason not to make it default? > > -- > Tadayuki OKADA It only adds performance... the whole idea of soft updates is to get async speed with sync reliability. Nothing is more reliable than synchronous writes, since data is verified absolutely as it is written. Still... I do agree it should be the default, or at least an option that can be set at install time. I think this summer I will be reinstalling my system, to clean up the cruft that ~1/2 year of learning has built up on my system. It would sure come in handy then. -- Andrew Hesford ajh3@chmod.ath.cx To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message