Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 00:06:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and async Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980514000358.11116D-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199805140430.AAA05562@rtfm.ziplink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
you may run a filesystem in async if you turn off soft updates soft updates is faster however in many real-world applications as async still queues SOME operations, and soft updates can detect when an unlink makes a write to disk that was scheduled un-needed, where async will still go through with it.. (think of temporary work files) personally I'd just run with softupdates.. certainly it is faster for /tmp to do so. try some comparisons. I'd be interested to see the results. julian On Thu, 14 May 1998, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > Ok, it turns out you need the filesystem mount sync to use softupdates. > > My understanding was: softupdates are faster then sync and safer > then sync. Is not async still faster, even at the expense of safety? > > Will I be able to combine async and softupdates in the future and why > would I want to? > > Thanks a lot! > > -mi > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.980514000358.11116D-100000>