I personally let it be enabled during installation. I noticed that I was
getting errors on fsck even after clean shutdown. After noticing it, I disabled
it and the problems go away. Also, fsck works really fast so I don't see much
advantage with SU+J.
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my
On 11/4/2012 5:32, Karl Denninger wrote:
It is utter insanity to enable, by default, filesystem options that
break _*the canonical backup solution*_ in the handbook (dump, when
used with -L, which it must be to dump a live filesystem SAFELY.)
Exactly.
--
Adam Strohl
Imho, at least wiki page (http://wiki.freebsd.org/) on
setting up FreeBSD on SSDs is needed.
Lots of confusion and different opinions (sector size!)...
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-is-SU-J-undesirable-on-SSDs-tp5757733p5757907.html
Sent from the
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Brett Glass br...@lariat.net wrote:
Have been following the thread related to SU+J, and am wondering: why is it
considered to be undesirable on SSDs (assuming that they have good wear
leveling)?
Superstition
--
Adam Vande More
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Brett Glass wrote:
Have been following the thread related to SU+J, and am wondering: why is it
considered to be undesirable on SSDs (assuming that they have good wear
leveling)? I have been enabling it on systems with SSDs, hoping that between
the lack of rotating media and
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Karl Denninger wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:25 PM, Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Brett Glass wrote:
Have been following the thread related to SU+J, and
am wondering: why is it
considered to be undesirable on SSDs (assuming that
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 17:06 -0500, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Brett Glass br...@lariat.net wrote:
Have been following the thread related to SU+J, and am wondering: why is it
considered to be undesirable on SSDs (assuming that they have good wear
leveling)?
On 11/3/2012 5:25 PM, Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Brett Glass wrote:
Have been following the thread related to SU+J, and am wondering: why
is it
considered to be undesirable on SSDs (assuming that they have good wear
leveling)? I have been enabling it on systems with SSDs,
At 04:32 PM 11/3/2012, Karl Denninger wrote:
It is utter insanity to enable, by default, filesystem options
that break the canonical backup solution in the handbook (dump,
when used with -L, which it must be to dump a live filesystem SAFELY.)
I have not used dump in many, many years. So, I
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Ian Lepore wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 17:06 -0500, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Brett Glass br...@lariat.net wrote:
Have been following the thread related to SU+J, and am wondering: why is it
considered to be undesirable on SSDs (assuming that
At 05:14 PM 11/3/2012, Jeff Roberson wrote:
The journal entries are 32 bytes per in SUJ. So the number of
extra writes is down in the noise. The journaling also gets you
asynchronous partial truncation and a few other asynchronous
operations that are sync in SU. It does cost slightly more
11 matches
Mail list logo
