Rod Taylor wrote: > On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 17:47, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Rod Taylor wrote: > > > > Yes, before UFS had soft updates, the synchronous nature of UFS made it > > > > slower than ext2, but now with soft updates, that performance difference > > > > is gone so you have two files systems, ext2 and ufs, similar peformance, > > > > but one is crash-safe and the other is not. > > > > > > Note entirely true. ufs is both crash-safe and quick-rebootable. You > > > do need to fsck at some point, but not prior to mounting it. Any > > > corrupt blocks are empty, and are easy to avoid. > > > > I am assuming you need to mount the drive as part of the reboot. Of > > course you can boot fast with any file system if you don't have to mount > > it. :-) > > Sorry, poor explanation. > > Background fsck (when implemented) would operate on a currently mounted > (and active) file system. The only reason fsck is required prior to > reboot now is because no-one had done the work. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=fsck&sektion=8&manpath=FreeBSD+5.0-current > > See the first paragraph of the above.
Oh, yes, I have heard of that missing feature. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
