On Sat, Jun 24, 2000, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> Kirk, do you still want to keep things that way ?
> Yes, I do want it kept as a yunefs option.
> Your above proposal would work, though that is not how NetBSD
> implemented it. I feel that it is a lot of extra mechanism for very
> little gain. Administrators generally make a one-time decision to
> run soft updates on a filesystem. It is not the sort of thing that
> they want to change on a regular basis. It is possible to run tunefs
> on a filesystem that is mounted read-only, so it no more difficult
> to use tunefs than it is to make it a mount-time option (i.e., they
> still have to down-grade to read-only, set the option, then upgrade).
> Finally, I expect that soft updates will eventually just be defaulted
> to `on' when a filesystem is built, and in a few rare instances an
> administrator will want to turn it off. I do not want to have an
> option that needs to be added to nearly every fstab entry to get
> the default behavior. Plus it is just one more bit of trivia that
> new system administrators need to learn to make their systems run
> well. The more of those details that need not be learned because
> they just do the right thing, the better.
There we go. If someone has a better argument against this, feel free
to post it to the list. I'm calling this one dead.
Adrian Chadd Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rest of the evening. Set a man on fire and
he's warm for the rest of his life.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message