Quote:
Originally posted by boneprone
that softupdates on is more efficient in its writing, but performance is greater becasue it meta stores the info and writes it peridiocally.
So if you have an outage inbetween this meta and writing you loose everything.
|
you'd only lose the data that was not yet completely written to the disk. given that it wasn't complete, you don't even know if the data was correct yet. it's better to just "pretend" that data was never written than to have to worry if it was corrupted.
you certainly don't lose everything.
Quote:
And can also run the possibility of corrupting other files.
There seems to be 2 very strong arguments over this.
|
i've never heard of this, except perhaps very early on when softupdates was being introduced. it's very stable now. i've never seen a single problem with it.
it's to the point that FreeBSD 5.0 will have background fsck'ing - filesystem checking - because regular fsck'ing will no longer be necessary.