[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: softupdates recommendation
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: softupdates recommendation
- From: "Jesper Louis Andersen" <jlouis_(_at_)_mongers_(_dot_)_org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:50:27 +0100
- Mail-followup-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
Quoting Marco Peereboom (marco_(_at_)_peereboom_(_dot_)_us):
> I use softupdates just about everywhere. Sure there are corner cases
> where one can loose some data however I (usually) prefer the
> performace boost over the potential to loose data. Keywords here are
> UPS, stability and easily recreated/restored data.
I might be wrong here but:
1. If you cannot afford to loose some data your program should use
fsync(2) to flush the in-core state down to the disk. If the semantics
in OpenBSD is not that way, I would like to know how I can do it safely.
At least that is the original semantics of fsync(2) as far as I know.
FreeBSD seems to support the thing written above at least.
2. By using softupdates you trade memory for speed. I do not know if
this issue is real though as I do not know how much memory the
dependency graph uses memory.