Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:58:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@bluemtn.net> To: Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Tadayuki OKADA <tadayuki@mediaone.net>, stable <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: soft update should be default Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0105050055420.16321-100000@sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com> In-Reply-To: <3AF378E2.5040700@quack.kfu.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Nick Sayer wrote: > 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. That's the thing about it. If you have write-caching enabled then all bets are off in any case (ie, you might as well run in async). In addition, soft updates does some really smart things even over async. -gordon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.33.0105050055420.16321-100000>