Subject: Re: restore(8)/tape quirk in 1.4?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Andy Doran <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/20/1999 21:28:38
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Gandhi woulda smacked you wrote:
> # Probably because of the synchronous meta-data writes. Have you tried
> # restoring to a file system mounted -async and see what throughput you get?
> If you're not mounted async, does this make "update" and "sync" relatively obsolete?
Speaking of which, how is softupdates integration coming along? We'd need
a kernelized 'syncer' process for that, right?