On Thursday, 6 July 2006 at 17:39:26 +0200, mickey wrote:
> > Do you refer to systems with low memory (or at least the need to
> > have the kernel not to occupy more memory than a minimum), for
> > example? If not, some example would be really appreciated to get
> > a deeper understanding of the t
> > Do you refer to systems with low memory (or at least the need to
> > have the kernel not to occupy more memory than a minimum), for
> > example? If not, some example would be really appreciated to get
> > a deeper understanding of the technology.
>
> you can start by reading some on the subjec
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 05:08:56PM +0200, Pablo Mar?n Ram?n wrote:
> > > > > * Improved performance
> > > > there are known scenarios where it does degrades performance.
> > > I meant in the general case.
> > me too
>
> Do you refer to systems with low memory (or at least the need to
> have the ke
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 04:16:07PM +0200, Pablo Mar?n Ram?n wrote:
> > > * Improved performance
> > there are known scenarios where it does degrades performance.
>
> I meant in the general case.
me too
> > > * Faster recovery latency after a crash
> > this is just not true at all.
>
> Effective
> > > > * Improved performance
> > > there are known scenarios where it does degrades performance.
> > I meant in the general case.
> me too
Do you refer to systems with low memory (or at least the need to
have the kernel not to occupy more memory than a minimum), for
example? If not, some example
> > * Improved performance
> there are known scenarios where it does degrades performance.
I meant in the general case.
> > * Faster recovery latency after a crash
> this is just not true at all.
Effectively, background fsck isn't implemented yet under OpenBSD
and NetBSD (FreeBSD has this featur
Pablo Marmn Ramsn wrote:
I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
Pros:
* Improved performance
* Faster recovery latency after a crash
* Can handle a security problem that ca
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 12:35:51PM +0200, Pablo Mar?n Ram?n wrote:
> > I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
> > I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
> > enabled by default.
>
> Pros:
> * Improved performance
there are known scen
> I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
> I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
> enabled by default.
Pros:
* Improved performance
* Faster recovery latency after a crash
* Can handle a security problem that can occur (AFAIK) in ba
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2006/07/05 23:19, Alexander Hall wrote:
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
Here's one reason you might sometimes not want it: space of
deleted files isn't recovered until the delayed updates have
been written out.
Josh Grosse wrote:
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:19:04PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
Hi,
I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
In order not to spread (or consume) FUD, I
On 2006/07/05 23:19, Alexander Hall wrote:
> I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
> enabled by default.
Here's one reason you might sometimes not want it: space of
deleted files isn't recovered until the delayed updates have
been written out. This is particularly a
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:19:04PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
> I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
> enabled by default.
>
> In order not to spread (or consume) FUD, I would lik
Hi,
I've been trying to find out whether to enable soft updates or not, and
I have not really seen any reason not to, other than that it is not
enabled by default.
In order not to spread (or consume) FUD, I would like to know if soft
updates are considered reliable and in which situations,
14 matches
Mail list logo
