From owner-freebsd-audit Sun Feb 11 6: 1:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from mobile.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [65.0.135.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0347A37B401; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:01:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobile.wemm.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1BE19U36962; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:01:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <200102111401.f1BE19U36962@mobile.wemm.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Stefan Esser Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Maxime Henrion , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Matt Dillon , Greg Black , FreeBSD-Audit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Patches] mount -o softdep (was: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems)) In-Reply-To: <20010211132031.A1735@StefanEsser.FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:01:09 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Stefan Esser wrote: > On 2001-02-07 05:20 -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > [ Follow-ups to the FreeBSD-Audit mail list only, please ... ] > > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > In message <200102071312.f17DCHt59672@mobile.wemm.org>, Peter Wemm writes : > > > >So that fsck(8) can see what mode the FS *was* mounted in last time. Tha t > > > >bears no relationship to fstab or the current options. > > > > > > Right, so if mounting in softupdates mode updates the superblock to > > > set the softupdates flag, why wouldn't that work ? > > > > It would work fine, but Kirk told me not to bother submitting patches > > because he had something else in mind (or at least, that's the way I > > interpreted the mail). > > I created patches that do just that (mount -o softdep performs > a soft-updates mount and updates the superblock softdep flag) > back in June 2000 and sent them to Kirk, who then agreed that > this was the way to go, when the problems with memory and disk > resource usage of soft-updates writes were solved (the missing > limits on the amount of dirty buffers and the delayed freeing > of disk blocks after a file is removed). Both of these points > seem to have been resolved, meanwhile, and I do not see any > reason, not to enable soft-updates by default and to provide a > mount option that disables soft-updates per filesystem. > > ( For reference, see the FreeBSD-Arch archive for the full message: > > Message-Id: <200006282051.NAA05776@beastie.mckusick.com> > To: arch@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Soft updates mount change > Cc: Stefan Esser > Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:51:00 -0700 > From: Kirk McKusick > > That message includes my mail to Kirk, where I describe the > diffs and my reasoning, why it should be done that way ... ) > > The following diffs are patches to all components (kernel, mount > programs) except for the required additions to the mount_ufs man > page. > > I have been running a patched kernel on sevreal systems for more > than a half year with no problems at all ... > > Regards, STefan I like this a lot! It is exactly what we need. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message