From owner-freebsd-stable Fri May 4 18:24:35 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708C237B424 for ; Fri, 4 May 2001 18:24:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from spike.unixfreak.org (spike [63.198.170.139]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F423E0B; Fri, 4 May 2001 18:24:29 -0700 (PDT) To: Andrew Hesford Cc: Tadayuki OKADA , stable Subject: Re: soft update should be default In-Reply-To: <20010504200443.A20673@cec.wustl.edu>; from ajh3@chmod.ath.cx on "Fri, 4 May 2001 20:04:43 -0500" Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 18:24:29 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010505012429.76F423E0B@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Andrew Hesford writes: > 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. AFAIK sysinstall now allows you to enable softupdates on the filesystems it creates for you. > > -- > Andrew Hesford > ajh3@chmod.ath.cx > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message