Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >that async provides fast writes at the cost of "no guarantee at all >for a consistent state of the filesystem". So, you choose: fast but >not so reliable writes, or slower writes with fast, reliable >disaster recovery. > >Thanks to the FreeBSD team for choosing the sensible default, even >if it results in the occasional "Linux is faster!" debate. Dang >smirky penguins... you're flightless I tell ya, flightless. =)
Is CentOS using ext2? I thought everyone moved to ext3 already, which provides nearly the speed of ext2+async but is safe due to its journal. If you make such comparisons, please use current technology, and not the status quo of 5 years ago. [Apart from that, over the last decade, I've lost more UFS filesystems than ext2, so at least for me, that purported unsafety of ext2+async mounts is theoretical at best. In the end, with today's write-caches usually enabled, both are essentially the same, anyways.] mkb. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
