Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:25:15 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and async Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980514171226.1994B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199805140430.AAA05562@rtfm.ziplink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Softupdates are sometimes faster and sometimes slower. It's faster when the combination of operations allows you to skip writing to disk at all. It's slower when you have to undo-then-write and redo-then-write. But I don't think it is really ever significantly slower than async writes. Softupdates does use more memory so this would probably be the only reason to use async. > Will I be able to combine async and softupdates in the future and why > would I want to? No, they are mutually exclusive. If you do a write it is either sync (default), async, or delayed (softupdates). You'd have no reason to combine them unless you want to get undefined behavior. Regards, Mike Hancock 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.SV4.3.95.980514171226.1994B-100000>