Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:19:46 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> Cc: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> Subject: Re: background_fsck=no does not work? Message-ID: <426C0D72.9090707@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <426BAAE4.1040606@incubus.de> References: <DD8197BD35BCC63A18AF62CB@palle.girgensohn.se> <426BA8FA.3080602@samsco.org> <426BAAE4.1040606@incubus.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthias Buelow wrote: > Scott Long wrote: > > >>not always be clean. Softupdates (hopefully) means that it will be >>consistent and recoverable, but what you're seeing here is normal and > > > Why "hopefully"? Aren't people convinced that it works correctly? > > mkb. Whether or not its algoritms are correct or the VM and VFS layers properly support it, modern IDE write caches pretty much make write orderings a crapshoot. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?426C0D72.9090707>