As Jordan Hubbard wrote ... > > of useless. It's like doing uphill testing of a fat guy on a bicycle > > against a Lamborghini - you "know" the result beforehand. > > Unfortunately, what you're probably not aware of is that the fat guy > also has a JATO unit strapped to the back of his bicycle. Don't make > assumptions. :-)
You've been reading too much of the Darwin Awards web site ;-) > > If extraction of the ports collection (not files in general, just the > > ports collection) is slower using soft updates than using "async" > > mode, then it seems some elevator sorting isn't working the way it > > Extraction of ALL the distribution bits is faster with async than it > is with soft updates. To put it another, more practical, way - if you > timed the installation with a stopwatch, with or without ports, the > async policy would win and Kirk has even pointed that out in other > emails. Given that, I have to honestly wonder why you've been arguing > so strongly for soft updates being used in the installation. Maybe I'm missing the very obvious: I've always considered (and lots of people who first saw it had the same judgement..) the FreeBSD installation to be fast. Even if you could gain, say, a 10% speedup overall, would that be worth the time/effort? Just playing the devil's (daemon's?) advocate here... | / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands - Powered by FreeBSD - |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte WWW : http://www.tcja.nl http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
