On Monday 21 April 2008 14:11:40 Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Sunday 20 of April 2008, Sami Liedes wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 07:27:54PM +0000, letto wrote:
> > > On Sunday 20 April 2008 14:41:19 Sami Liedes wrote:
> > > > Well, I read those threads and everyone there seems to think it's no
> > > > major performance hit.
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? I've read those threads and it seems that
> > > this behaviour was only necesarry for xfs and that it was planned to
> > > make it detect fs at run-time and only fsync when necesarry. See this
> > > message http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-devel&m=119453925805510&w=2
> >
> > 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?

I discussed this with a friend (who liked XFS because it could online grow >:) 
) and it seems that the worst part of XFS behaviour in this regard was fixed 
in 2.6.22 --- the bit where any dirty file was zeroed just to be sure(!). So 
maybe we don't have to sync() quite so much now.  He has tested it a lot of 
times by installing a bios that crashed linux all the time, and it seems to 
work much better now :)

Just my 0.02€.

-- 
regards, Esben

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<