Comments on: WAPBL vs. Soft Dependences

By: Matthias Scheler

Matthias Scheler — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 08:38:45 +0000

I didn't have any problems with WAPBL since the mega patch which went into the branch before 5.0_RC3. My system uses log on most partitions now including the Squid cache partition.

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 04:49:29 +0000

I’ve had some kernel panics using log mounts of late (NetBSD 5.0 RC2 & RC3).

I’ve removed log from my squid’s cache partition and returned to soft updates. I think …. WAPBL is long overdue and good to have – but it needs some real world solid workloads to ripen.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:38:42 +0000

So this the last nail in the coffin of all that FUD about how softupdates are better than journalling. Actually they are worse of course, as everybody else already knew.

By: Matthias Scheler

Matthias Scheler — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:40:41 +0000

Yes, “soft dependences” are apparently called “Soft updates” under FreeBSD.

By: Anne Nonymous Ignorant

Anne Nonymous Ignorant — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:12:18 +0000

Just wondering … “soft dependencies” are the same thing the other BSDs call “soft updates”?

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:19:01 +0000

Sun also benchmarked logging versus softdeps much more extensively: there conclusion was based on more information and was basically that softdeps wins in some cases, logging in others but overall performance was similar. If loggin had an advantage, it was slight. The paper is publically available although I don’t have a link to post here (google?).

I would agree logging allows fast restarts, but that is the main advantage, not really performance.