Re: Proposal to enable WAPBL by default for 10.0

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 07:45:08AM +0200, Micha? G?rny wrote:
 > > > Rationale: the default filesystem (FFS) without WAPBL is more prone to
 > > > data loss.
 > > 
 > > It is not, unfortunately. We had WAPBL on by default some time back
 > > and eventually switched it off.
 > > 
 > > The problem is that because it still doesn't do anything about
 > > journaling or preserving file contents, but runs a lot faster, it
 > > loses more data when interrupted.
 > 
 > How does that compare to the level of damage non-journaled FFS takes?

To be explicit:

It is the same underly problem either way, and it is worse in practice
with WAPBL than without because WAPBL ffs runs faster than non-WAPBL
ffs and thus accumulates more unwritten blocks.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost