From owner-freebsd-stable Fri May 4 20:52:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from quack.kfu.com (quack.kfu.com [205.178.90.194]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021F437B422; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:52:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsayer@quack.kfu.com) Received: from icarus.kfu.com (icarus.kfu.com [3ffe:1200:301b:1:260:1dff:fe1e:7cdf]) by quack.kfu.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f453q2c09313 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified OK); Fri, 4 May 2001 20:52:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsayer@quack.kfu.com) Received: from quack.kfu.com (localhost [::1]) by icarus.kfu.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f453q2963556; Fri, 4 May 2001 20:52:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nsayer@quack.kfu.com) Message-ID: <3AF378E2.5040700@quack.kfu.com> Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 20:52:02 -0700 From: Nick Sayer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE i386; en-US; 0.8) Gecko/20010321 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Smith Cc: Tadayuki OKADA , stable Subject: Re: soft update should be default References: <200105050142.f451gsl05388@mass.dis.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Mike Smith wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Why 'soft update' is not default? >> It adds performance and stability, doesn't it? > > > It requires disabling of write caching, which typically reduces > performance (significantly). > Why wouldn't a similar requirement (disabling write caching) apply to non-softupdates filesystems? The disk doesn't know whether the write is synchronous or not, after all. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message