Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:12:16 -0800 From: "Scott Hess" <scott@avantgo.com> To: "R Joseph Wright" <rjoseph@nwlink.com> Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: softupdates and async Message-ID: <0c4901bf7374$a248bde0$1e80000a@avantgo.com> References: <38A2103E.815B0C4C@nwlink.com> <0bdb01bf7365$2c465080$1e80000a@avantgo.com> <38A216C9.5A2E6719@nwlink.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"R Joseph Wright" <rjoseph@nwlink.com> wrote: > Scott Hess wrote: > > "R Joseph Wright" <rjoseph@nwlink.com> wrote: > > > Is it okay to have both on the same filesystem? > > > > No, you cannot run both on the same filesystem. [Aside: what would be the > > point? async+softupdates==async.] > > So softupdates does the same thing as async? No. async allows the system to rearrange writes completely arbitrarily. softupdates allows the system to rearrange writes such that they still go out in the correct order. So async can be slightly faster, but softupdates is much safer. > I have 100MB /, 40MB /var, 256MB swap, and the rest is /usr. Is > softupdates generally only done for /usr? Basically any filesystem that has write activity. Keeping in mind that atime updates happen when you merely look at files (though in that case I'd just mount with the noatime option in fstab). If you had seperate filesystems for /usr and /usr/home, I'd just set softupdates on /usr/home, and mount /usr noatime. But with just /usr, I'd go with softupdates. _Lots_ of write happen to /var, so it's probably worth enabling there. I'd probably arrange for /tmp to be a link to /var/tmp, rather than worry about enabling softupdates on /. I've been bitten too many times by programs (like sort) wanting to dump huge files on /tmp. Later, scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0c4901bf7374$a248bde0$1e80000a>