I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
Pros:
* Improved performance
* Faster recovery latency after a crash
* Can handle a security problem that can occur (AFAIK) in bare
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 12:35:51PM +0200, Pablo Mar?n Ram?n wrote:
I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
Pros:
* Improved performance
there are known scenarios
Pablo Marmn Ramsn wrote:
I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
Pros:
* Improved performance
* Faster recovery latency after a crash
* Can handle a security problem that
* Improved performance
there are known scenarios where it does degrades performance.
I meant in the general case.
* Faster recovery latency after a crash
this is just not true at all.
Effectively, background fsck isn't implemented yet under OpenBSD
and NetBSD (FreeBSD has this feature
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 05:08:56PM +0200, Pablo Mar?n Ram?n wrote:
* Improved performance
there are known scenarios where it does degrades performance.
I meant in the general case.
me too
Do you refer to systems with low memory (or at least the need to
have the kernel not to
Do you refer to systems with low memory (or at least the need to
have the kernel not to occupy more memory than a minimum), for
example? If not, some example would be really appreciated to get
a deeper understanding of the technology.
you can start by reading some on the subject...
Hi,
I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
In order not to spread (or consume) FUD, I would like to know if soft
updates are considered reliable and in which situations,
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:19:04PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
Hi,
I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
In order not to spread (or consume) FUD, I would like to
On 2006/07/05 23:19, Alexander Hall wrote:
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
Here's one reason you might sometimes not want it: space of
deleted files isn't recovered until the delayed updates have
been written out. This is particularly
Josh Grosse wrote:
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:19:04PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
Hi,
I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
In order not to spread (or consume) FUD, I
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2006/07/05 23:19, Alexander Hall wrote:
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
Here's one reason you might sometimes not want it: space of
deleted files isn't recovered until the delayed updates have
been written
11 matches
Mail list logo
