From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 23 05:57:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7066116A4CE for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:57:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sampson.aptedtech.com (sampson.aptedtech.com [209.124.140.29]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE38643D45 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:57:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dhull@digitaloverload.net) Received: (qmail 6217 invoked by uid 66); 23 Dec 2004 07:14:14 -0000 Received: from dhull@digitaloverload.net by sampson.aptedtech.com by uid 60 with qmail-scanner-1.15 (sophie: 2.10/3.63. Clear:. Processed in 0.080751 secs); 23 Dec 2004 07:14:14 -0000 Received: from 209-124-142-204.olive.dsl.arctic.net (HELO tower1.digitaloverload.local) (209.124.142.204) by sampson.customcpu.com with SMTP; 23 Dec 2004 07:14:13 -0000 From: Damien Hull To: Chuck Swiger In-Reply-To: <41C8DC87.5080207@mac.com> References: <20041221104508.1002.qmail@rahul.net> <41C8DC87.5080207@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:57:00 -0900 Message-Id: <1103781420.16972.17.camel@tower1.digitaloverload.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: UFS2 with Soft Updates Robust? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:57:13 -0000 On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 21:31 -0500, Chuck Swiger wrote: > John Conover wrote: > > Is UFS2 with soft updates the most robust file system in freebsd? > > No, although UFS2 with softupdates is robust enough for production use. > > If you make the filesystem writes syncronous and disable write caching on the > hard drive, you will improve the robustness at significant cost to performance. > Are you saying that the UFS2 file system sucks? If so what options does one have? I've read that softupdates should be turned on. How much of a performance loss will I see if I turn softupates off? -- Damien Hull