From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Aug 8 08:49:03 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA15234 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA15215 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.7.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA17418; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 09:46:46 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199608081546.JAA17418@rover.village.org> To: Michael Hancock Subject: Re: Linux async vs. FreeBSD sync Cc: Mark Powell , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 08 Aug 1996 18:30:47 +0900 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 09:46:46 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk : The FFS careful synchronous does have performance penalties, but I think : we agree that the data integrity it provides is more important. : : FFS also takes pains to write to the disk intelligently leading to better : recoverability and less fragmentation. In the last two and half years of using FreeBSD, I've only had one file system corruption not caused by a flakey disk. That was when I shut off the power (by mistake) on my FreeBSD box while doing an import of linux sources into a CVS tree I keep here for linux hacking. I lost 28 CVS files and had to get them off of tape... :-(. fsck was happy with the disk, and reported nothing unusual about it on the reboot, which was really odd (yes, it did a full fsck, not just a simple "its clean" check). Warner