On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Michael Sierchio <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Philip <[email protected]> wrote: > >> /dev/ad0s1a on / (ufs, local, noatime) >> devfs on /dev (devfs, local, multilabel) >> /dev/ad1s1d on /var (ufs, local, soft-updates) >> /dev/ad1s1e on /data (ufs, local, soft-updates) > >> I didn't ask for "soft-updates"; it seems to be the default. Is it >> good/bad/doesn't matter on something like a net5501 ? Reliability and >> crash recovery are more important to me than performance. > > Softupdates is designed to maintain disk integrity in event of a crash > or power outage. It tracks and enforces metadata dependencies. > > No filesystem can guarantee against all data loss, but softupdates > maintains filesystem consistency. > > I would not use softupdates for a stable queue - it destroys atomicity > of link/unlink operations, for example (though it is possible to force > data/metadata writes after link operations by opening the directory > itself rw, then immediately closing it, according to private > communication from Kirk McKusick). > > I think that, for your purposes, it's the right choice. > > - M
If you want true reliability you might want to use the "sync" mount option. This performs all IO to the disk synchronously. It does come with a performance penalty in IO but if you're more interested in reliability over disk write speeds (particularly for /, which shouldn't see very many writes anyway) you might want to look into it. -Proto _______________________________________________ Soekris-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
