Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing

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
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073