Matthias Buelow wrote:
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.
OK, my bad. I did not do thorough research, just enough to satisfy
my curiosity. If ext3 does well and safely, then more power to 'em.
Anyway, sorry, what I wrote was not intended to be flame bait, just
blowing off a little steam. I'll go crawl back under my rock now.
However, I stand by the assertion that a slow, certain default is
better than a fast, uncertain one. That async was ever the Linux
default is troubling (to me), and I've got plenty other reasons to
prefer BSD over Linux (which is why I didn't do thorough research in
the first place -- no interest at all in migrating, even if there's
a database speed boost).
--
Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator
South Central Library System (SCLS)
Library Interchange Network (LINK)
<gregb at scls.lib.wi.us>, (608) 266-6348
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
