Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:36:09 +0300 (MSK) From: "Aleksandr A.Babaylov" <babolo@links.ru> To: dillon@earth.backplane.com (Matt Dillon) Cc: gjb@gbch.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Message-ID: <200102102236.BAA14393@aaz.links.ru> In-Reply-To: <200102100231.f1A2Vgd20496@earth.backplane.com> from "Matt Dillon" at "Feb 9, 1 06:31:42 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt Dillon writes: > :Matt Dillon wrote: > :> Yes. In general softupdates will make the entire filesystem safer. > :Does it make sense to use softupdates on file systems like / and > :/usr which have little file creation/removal? > I have had softupdates turned on for all of my mount points for over > a year. > > For /, the only issue is that if you have too small a root parition a > 'make installworld' may run the filesystem out of space faster then > softupdates can free the blocks. My root partition is always 128M > for that reason (and also so I can throw a few kernel.debug images in > there). > > My recommendation is to turn softupdates on for everything you have, > and for us to make it a newfs default as well. At least in -stable. You use softupdates turned on for all of your ufs. Understand. What is the reason to use softupdates for file system with only atime updates on it? -- @BABOLO http://links.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102102236.BAA14393>