On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:19:04PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> For MSDOS it's one thing and likely helps. But for ufs it doesn't
> help. Soft updates already does an excellent job at reducing wear and
> all async does is give added danger of dataloss. Linux distros don't
> matter for UFS because d
Good point; fixed.
On 0919T2219, Warner Losh wrote:
> For MSDOS it's one thing and likely helps. But for ufs it doesn't
> help. Soft updates already does an excellent job at reducing wear and
> all async does is give added danger of dataloss. Linux distros don't
> matter for UFS because different
For MSDOS it's one thing and likely helps. But for ufs it doesn't
help. Soft updates already does an excellent job at reducing wear and
all async does is give added danger of dataloss. Linux distros don't
matter for UFS because different design decisions have been made for
ext[234] and UFS.
Warner
Mounting removable media async improves performance and reduces wear.
And AFAIK that's what most Linux distros used to do.
On 0919T2032, Ronald Klop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Your commit message says in words exactly what the diff says in code.
> Would you like to elaborate on why the change is made? I'
Hi,
Your commit message says in words exactly what the diff says in code.
Would you like to elaborate on why the change is made? I'm curious
because this could cause severe damage to the filesystem on unclean eject
of the media.
Regards,
Ronald.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:51:27 +0200, Edwa
