Subject: Re: NEW_BUFQ really cool!
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Martin Weber <Ephaeton@gmx.net>
Date: 03/30/2003 22:13:53
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 09:56:11PM +0200, Christian Biere wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar <email@example.com> wrote:
> > my system works for 6 days, no crash, no errors in dmesg, loaded all
> > the time quite heavy.
> > shouldn't NEW_BUFQ be default?
> Aren't wscons (for i386) and softdep used by default in 1.6?
I don't know about 1.6, but softdeps != NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY. See man 4 options
and /NEW_BUFQ. I'm running with it stable for ... eons or sth like that
too, and it's nice. Not perfect still, but nice. And yes, I don't trust
softdeps or lfs either; you cough, it crashes. I can't complain about
wscons though (as long as you don't do cat /dev/(u)random).
And iirc, at the time the option was added, it was also said that it
probably would go default "soon", whatever that term refers to. Mind