You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
does anyone use/recommend using sync option for harddrives in fstab? it sounds like a sensible thing to use but i dont know why most or all distros not use it by default. is it too slow?
(does not windows do asyncronous file operations too?)
Offline
async is the default on linux (but not on the BSD). See the manpage of mount(8) for details ;^)
Excessive showering, grooming, and toothbrushing is not only vain, it wastes valuable coding time.
Offline
ok im so sorry, what i meant was sync, where changes are written immediately to disk. this is how it is in windows i believe.
Offline
No problem Try it if you want, it will not break anything. It may be safer, but less quick - though on BSD it's quick. Never used it and never loosed data, so I don't think it's mandatory...
You can try dirsync if you want metadatas (ie directories, symlinks, nodes) to be written synchronously but datas (files) asynchronously, too. Maybe a good compromise between speed and reliability
From the manpage this option seems to work only on ext2/3 and ufs, so if you have another filesystem it may be ignored.
Excessive showering, grooming, and toothbrushing is not only vain, it wastes valuable coding time.
Offline
hello, ok thanks im going to see about dirsync. (i was so busy so i only saw your reply now). im just concerned about power failures because i dont have a UPS and im always typing documents on my computer.
Offline
I'm using the sync options only for external drives and usb keys. That way I can be sure when copy is finished so I can unmount the drives. But for / and /home it speeds things because copy windows, cp command and others disapear faster. Also, I think you can save some power by letting the kernel decide when to write, giving you longer battery life.
Offline
Pages: 1