2008/4/21, Luciano Montanaro <mikelima@cirulla.net>:
On Monday 21 April 2008 17:25:47 Gary Greene wrote:
> On Monday 21 April 2008 8:15:51 am Sami Liedes wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 02:11:40PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > > On Sunday 20 of April 2008, Sami Liedes wrote:
> > > > I had missed that post. Still, no analysis of the performance hit
> > > > there, and I think the attitude of "no data loss at all allowed at
> > > > any power loss, implement at any cost to performance" is misguided.
> > >
> > > Tell that to XFS developers and their users. Anyway, where's your
> > > patch?
> >
> > The patch is simple and not very fine grained, but effective and
> > shouldn't break anything unless a power loss happens. Attached.
> >
> > Sami
>
> Again you are not taking into account XFS. How many times must we iterate
> over this.... _If you don't have the code check which FS this is on and
> PROPERLY deal with this, you will kill users data._
Technically, it would be XFS that would do that.
Alternatively, the user has made a choice that he *could* regret. Or he could
be lucky, and fail to experience any data loss.
So do we want to force a penalty for every user out there just to spare some
potential grief to the tiny minority using an XFS filesystem?
Hey, I use XFS and I don't feel like a tiny minority - it is one of the better filesystems :)
We should also consider that other programs out there are not so zealous in
protecting user data... so if this were a real issue, people would steer away
from the filesystem.
Right. I use XFS and the frequent "hangs" on disk I/O that I get are a PITA while using the desktop. I don't care about config files *that* much... what about a "reliable flag" or something, or even explicit sync?
Another approach is to hold off sync calls for some milliseconds to combine several calls.
Luciano