On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 01:26:11AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> I believe that the only reason for this is that softupdates 
> under NetBSD is not well implemented, and therefore is not 
> sufficiently stable to leave turned on.  If/when the NetBSD 
> implementation is brought up to the levels where it is under FreeBSD 
> that this will be much less of a problem.

Wow, what a heavy-handed statement! :) It would seem to me that whether or
not you specify the bit really has no bearing on how stable something is;
I've found soft updates to be very stable under most conditions under most of
the *BSDs, however under heavy, heavy load it's possible to cause all of
them to freak out.

However, I wonder how you've determined that NetBSD's implementation of
soft updates on FFS is badly implemented...

> Moreover, the /etc/fstab file is not something you want to 
> munge, and encouraging frequent modifications of this file to enable 
> or disable softupdates is an incredibly bad idea.

So is using a tool like tunefs :)

-- 
Chris Chen <cchen@Nougat.ORG>
Beyond Chewable