Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:06:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Tore Lund <tl32@next.online.no> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sidetracked: why gjournal over soft-updates (Was: Re: UFS2 Message-ID: <20080421220526.T1721@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <480A6538.5000102@next.online.no> References: <fu5nkb$3ib$1@ger.gmane.org> <790871.1688.qm@web57004.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <9bbcef730804180840y77adff73x7ad0cf90c82633a9@mail.gmail.com> <200804192005.06962.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> <9bbcef730804191302t31eaf472s1b7e64fe5915b9b1@mail.gmail.com> <480A6538.5000102@next.online.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> than SU > > The caching can be stopped by putting "hw.ata.wc=0" into > /boot/loader.conf. Doesn't that settle this point about safety? but that's not needed. UPS is enough. even if your machine will halt/crash/panic, drive cache will be written then. > Since we use softupdates and others use gjournal, one suspects that > there are reasons why "real" journaling systems have not been adopted. softupdates works very well, and doesn't write the same thing twice, like journaling.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080421220526.T1721>