Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 09:08:30 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> To: Bas Smeelen <b.smeelen@ose.nl> Cc: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] Re: SU+J on 9.1-RC2 ISO Message-ID: <20121103090830.0000009d@unknown> In-Reply-To: <5094184B.6070100@ose.nl> References: <5093F934.7050306@ose.nl> <5093FD3D.3080201@ateamsystems.com> <1351876381.2657.1.camel@mjakubik.localdomain> <50940276.5030306@ateamsystems.com> <50940C20.3090409@ose.nl> <50940E40.3090709@ose.nl> <5094112C.2070102@ose.nl> <20121102184131.GB22755@dft-labs.eu> <5094184B.6070100@ose.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:00:27 +0100 Bas Smeelen <b.smeelen@ose.nl> wrote: > Though the last 10 years I have not had the inconvenience of having to=20 > deal with long fsck' s or bgfsck' s on servers or workstation installs,= =20 > so I think this should not be default on new installs. This is one man's opinion. On the other hand, SUJ by default is a = godsend for me because of the number of crashes/fscks I've been dealing = with.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121103090830.0000009d>