Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems)

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Black writes:
>Matt Dillon wrote:
>
>>     And, I would say, that for any mailer creating and deleting files in
>>     a spool directory at a high rate, *ONLY* a filesystem with softupdates
>>     turned on or a journaling filesystem such as XFS or ReiserFS can be
>>     considered crash-surviveable.  Synchronous meta-data updates will not
>>     save you (EXT2FS or FFS without softupdates).
>
>It seems to me that you're saying that softupdates is now the
>recommended way to go -- so why does 4.2-Release still have the
>dire warnings in /sys/ufs/ffs/README.softupdates?  Is that file
>obsolete, or do the warnings still apply?

I think that file is obsolete by now.

I also think we should make newfs turn softupdates on by default in
-current.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message