*BSD中文用户社区

自从根新到－current，softdep，就不支持了，不知道log，和softdep，性能差别大吗？有人呢比较过吗？

wkx9dragon 写了:自从根新到－current，softdep，就不支持了，不知道log，和softdep，性能差别大吗？有人呢比较过吗？

你忙活乱了，也不说是什么系统，起码说O或N别人也能理解;)

自从根新到－current，softdep，就不支持了，不知道log，和softdep，性能差别大吗？有人呢比较过吗？

不好意思，是netbsd。现在是两系统一起用，openbsd 4.7 有声音，能acpi，可是没有ntfs－3g，netbsd有ntfs－3g，不能acpi，不能发声，软件没有roxterm，自己下，编译错误，气人。

有人能说说mfs，tmpfs在openbsd下使用，设置心得吗？

找到取消softdep，推荐log 的原因了，但是openbsd没有动作很奇怪哦。不过他默认是没有softdep。
[email protected];

Considering these paper/slides presented at BSDCon 2010:
http://www.mckusick.com/publications/suj.pdf
http://www.mckusick.com/publications/suj-slides.pdf

It appears that there now is an option to use a combination of soft
updates and journalling on FreeBSD. Our softdep code was removed in
-current, considering the burden of fixing it when an alternative,
WAPBL became available.

However, this probably means that FreeBSD would also have a less buggy
and MP-safe softdep implementation which might possibly be portable to
NetBSD (although possibly invasive code, as our softdep was), and that
this alternative used with logging might potentially result in less I/O
overhead than WAPBL as well as better metadata referencial integrity.

As I recall, with WAPBL (as with FFS without softdep) it's possible for
extra blocks (potentially garbage) to remain attached to files in the
event of a crash, which is a problem of FFS itself, but which softdep
helped to mitigate.

After I read about this today, I thought I'd share the links, in case
interested parties want to consider trying future alternatives to
FFS+WAPBL or LFS on NetBSD.

Thanks,
--
Matt

估计是你分析的原因，默认是不开启的，而且FAQ里有断电丢失数据的警告。