Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

> Hi! > > If I understand mount(8) (http://man.openbsd.org/mount) right, FFS > mounts have a metadata I/O mode and a data I/O mode. By default, > metadata is accessed synchronously and data is accessed > asynchronously. > > "-o sync" will force both to synchronous mode, and "-o softdep" would >

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

Hi Tinker, If you don't expect to run into unexpected shutdowns (power .. you will be ok with defaults ) ie if you believe the system will always have reliable power, (and you will have access to the console to help fsck on reboot, in the unlikely event of loss of power to the running system)

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

t1...@protonmail.ch (Tinker), 2018.02.11 (Sun) 06:06 (CET): > My original question was which mounting options are optimal for FFS > filesystems on SSD:s, for data-safety and relative IO speed. > > It seems noone in this thread had any data-safety issues ever and so > there was no feedback beyond

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

My original question was which mounting options are optimal for FFS filesystems on SSD:s, for data-safety and relative IO speed. It seems noone in this thread had any data-safety issues ever and so there was no feedback beyond "use the defaults". I guess "noatime" as a measure to lower write

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

2018-02-10 7:28 GMT+01:00 Rupert Gallagher : > The only problem I've encountered is rsync unable to preserve the original > time of files: copied files have the time of the copy. man rsync -t, --times preserve modification times You want -a, --archive

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

The only problem I've encountered is rsync unable to preserve the original time of files: copied files have the time of the copy. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 01:50, wrote: >> From tom.sm...@wirelessconnect.eu Thu Feb 8 23:37:59 2018 >

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

I use ls -lu and find -atime quite frequently. I've also been using OpenBSD as a desktop (with all the insane disk activity of a browser cache, temp files, git, etc) while doing absolutely nothing special using SATA SSD drives. I'm running Softraid crypto on one, running without softraid on the

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

> From tom.sm...@wirelessconnect.eu Sat Feb 10 11:28:46 2018 > From: Tom Smyth > Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:10:30 + > Subject: Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is > more data-safe and fast? > To: mar...@martinbrandenburg.com > > Hi

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

Hi Martin... can you give a specific case where you have experienced negative impacts from thevmount options i suggested... It would be good to know... Thanks Martin Tom Smyth On 10 Feb 2018 12:50 AM, wrote: > > From tom.sm...@wirelessconnect.eu Thu Feb 8

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

> From tom.sm...@wirelessconnect.eu Thu Feb 8 23:37:59 2018 > From: Tom Smyth > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 19:40:23 + > Subject: Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is > more data-safe and fast? > To: Tinker > > Also

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

Also use noatime mount option so whe reading files you are not updating access time Ie there would be writes to disk everytime u access a file if noatime is not set On 8 Feb 2018 7:36 PM, "Tinker" wrote: > Hi! > > If I understand mount(8)

Re: For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

Also use noatime mount option so whe reading files you are not updating access time On 8 Feb 2018 7:36 PM, "Tinker" wrote: > Hi! > > If I understand mount(8) (http://man.openbsd.org/mount) right, FFS > mounts have a metadata I/O mode and a data I/O mode. By default, >

For a FFS on an SSD, which of "-o" nil, "sync" &/ "softdep" is more data-safe and fast?

Hi! If I understand mount(8) (http://man.openbsd.org/mount) right, FFS mounts have a metadata I/O mode and a data I/O mode. By default, metadata is accessed synchronously and data is accessed asynchronously. "-o sync" will force both to synchronous mode, and "-o softdep" would change the