Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:45:22 -0800
From:      Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <>
To:        "David Schwartz" <>
Cc:, "FreeBSD Stable" <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: SOFTUPDATES 
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:27:55 PST." <000001bf4b6b$c07acb40$> 

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
In message <000001bf4b6b$c07acb40$>, "David Schwartz" writes
> > Is anyone running the SOFTUPDATES option with Stable? I just enabled it
> > and was wondering if there are any issues I should be aware of
> > performance wise. Any problems? I enabled it for the /usr
> > filesystem. Any reason why / is not specifically recommended?
> 	I've been quite happy with softupdates on my STABLE machines. I see the
> biggest performance improvements in file extractions from tarballs.
> 	Enabling softupdates on / is not recommended primarily because that
> filesystem is not frequently written to. Another reason not to enable
> softupdates on / is that you may not have enough free space to do a 'make
> world' (softupdates delays the returning of empty space to the filesystem).
> One final reason is possible increased risk.

I've enabled softupdates on / (/ being a 750 MB filesystem, about 60% 
full, containing /, /usr, and /var) on a couple machines at work.  I 
also use softupdates on one of my machines at home, however on that 
system I do not use softupdates on / and /usr (on different disks) 
because they're hardly written to.  I've  had no problems with data
integrity or system availability due to softupdates (knock on wood).

Regards,                       Phone:  (250)387-8437
Cy Schubert                      Fax:  (250)387-5766
Sun/DEC Team, UNIX Group    Internet:
Province of BC

To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>