From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Apr 17 10: 2:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4790537B6D1 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:02:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e3HHTbY01878; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:29:37 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Rahul Siddharthan Cc: Rasmus Skaarup , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: disc io - sync and async Message-ID: <20000417102936.H4381@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000416120315.W4381@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000417185653.A7455@theory6.physics.iisc.ernet.in> <20000417084552.E4381@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000417221637.A407@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000417221637.A407@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in>; from rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in on Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 10:16:37PM +0530 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Rahul Siddharthan [000417 10:23] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein said on Apr 17, 2000 at 08:45:52: > > As far as making softupdates the default, again you haven't read > > everything you're supposed to: > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/ufs/ffs/README.softupdates?rev=1.7 > > I think the question was on making async mounts the default > (linux-style). The FreeBSD mount manpage warns against doing this; > the linux manpage doesn't. (Unsurprising, since it's the default in > linux). > > Also, Rasmus's earlier benchmarks suggest that FreeBSD's performance > is 1/4 that of linux on the same hardware. Is that typical, or some > freak of that particular hardware setup? How much of that can be > compensated by softupdates (the README suggests a performance gain of > 20% less running time and 40% less I/O)? Is there something > especially dangerous about a FreeBSD async mount, or is the manpage > merely being more "honest" than the linux manpage? When filesystem > performance is important (say a heavy-duty mail server, or NFS > server), and power/hardware-related crashes are not a worry and backup > precautions have been taken, what would you recommend doing? Drawing your own conclusions from the email I posted. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message