Thanks to all who responded. Just about everyone who wrote said that they use the logging mount option on their file systems with great success. The biggest advantage seems to be recovering from an ungraceful shutdown. For whatever reasons the engineers who performed the original installs on my 1280's might have had, it remains unknown. I am going to go w/ logging on all my UFS file systems. I would like to thank those who responded, but there were to many to list. So, I am going w/ a blanket "thanks to all". Thanks again :-) chuck In my original message, I wrote: Hello all, This question is related to the one that I just posted about my 280R crashing. I am looking for some insight on the UFS logging mount option. When I fsck'ed the /var file system on my crashed 280R, it had many reconnect errors. I am wondering if there are any situations when it would not be beneficial to use the UFS logging. Is there a performance hit when a file system uses logging? I ask because when I bought some new V1280 w/ Solaris 8 preinstalled, the root file system, which included /usr, had logging and /var which was on a separate file system did NOT have logging. From what I read on logging, it would make sense to mount all UFS file systems w/ logging. I would figure sun had a reason why they did not use logging on /var. Any thoughts? Thanks again, Chuck Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. _______________________________________________ sunmanagers mailing list sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagersReceived on Thu Mar 4 21:30:17 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2016 - 06:43:29 EST