Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 02:17:05 +0200 (EET) From: Andrew Stesin <stesin@gu.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mount -o async on a news servre Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.970112015625.4758B-100000@trifork.gu.net> In-Reply-To: <199701102006.NAA20414@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dear Terry, thanks a lot for your explicit analysis! Every time reading your messages I learn much, it's a great gift. Now just a few minor additions, sorry. On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Exactly *how* dangerous is setting a file system to async? > > Depends on how much you will miss the data if it disappears. For > passive news servers, not very. It depends. After such a failure you'll loose sync between your actual newsspool and all the databases carried by INN or CNews; => rebuild of history and active will be needed to recover consistency of the entire news system => terrific amount of time will be lost doing this each time, even on a small (1Gb) news spool. On the other hand, I assume that crash will result only in article lossage from spool, no other consequenses; so if you'll tolerate the fact that your history and active databases do carry information about several hundreds of lost articles -- your'e (probably) Ok. [...] > was there before) pointed to by a valid index record, and a valid (but > orphaned) data record not pointed to by anyone. ... in the case of news this means "an article in spool which isn't in the history+active", right? It's also bad. [...] > The INN history file would probably need to be rebuilt after each crash God save me! as I told earlier. :-) Just for now I consider that "noatime" mount option is the best balance between reliability and performance on FreeBSD, right? Best regards, Andrew Stesin nic-hdl: ST73-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.970112015625.4758B-100000>