On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 10:41:46 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2010-11-06 08:46 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 23:18:47 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:35:54AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > What are the implications for ext4 and btrfs? > > > > They are going to be slower with this change. > > Are you sure this is the case for btrfs? Mike Hommey has described the > sync() implementation as really horrible[0] (unfortunately the webserver on > glandium.org is currently down, but the Google cache[1] has a copy).
Buh, yeah, sorry, I meant that to apply only to ext4. I didn't remember Mike's blog post about btrfs, but Modestas pointed out in [2] it's twice as worse using sync(). [2] <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=588254> > For ext4, mounting with the nodelalloc option helps a lot, although this > option allegedly slows down ext4 in the general case. Ah right, that was pointed out in a thread recently. This should also fix any zero-length problems on ext4 too AFAIUI. > 0. http://glandium.org/blog/?p=1169 > 1. > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zFsVyqYwxAAJ:glandium.org/blog/%3Fp%3D1169+mike+hommey+dpkg+sync&cd=1&ct=clnk thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101106191317.ga19...@gaara.hadrons.org