Re: high load, no bottleneck

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Sep 18,  3:34am, manu%netbsd.org@localhost (Emmanuel Dreyfus) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: high load, no bottleneck

| Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost> wrote:
| 
| > On large filesystems with many files fsck can take a really long time after
| > a crash. In my personal experience power outages are much less frequent than
| > crashes (I crash quite a lot since I always fiddle with things). If you
| > don't care about fsck time, you don't need WAPBL. 
| 
| But you just told me that I will need a fsck after crash now I am
| running with vfs.wapbl.flush_disk_cache=0 so I wonder if I should not
| just mount without -o log. What are WAPBL benefits when running with
| vfs.wapbl.flush_disk_cache=0?

You *might* need an fsck after power loss. If you crash and the disk syncs
then you should be ok if the disk flushed (which it probably did if you
say "syncing disks" after the panic).

christos