What's the danger (if any) in setting cycbuffupdate to a really big #?
rra at stanford.edu
Mon Jan 22 07:56:53 UTC 2001
Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu at internetcds.com> writes:
> I'm assuming that if the system crashed, it may be an issue, but barring
> having to slam back and forth from the beginning of a disk to the end
> when you're updating a big CNFS buffer near the end, why wouldn't I want
> to bump that to say, a few thousand, rather than 25? If I don't care if
> I lose a few articles in a crash?
I don't see any obvious drawbacks. The default is chosen to be on the
safe side, but that's why it's configurable. :)
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers