On 10/27/10 12:11, Bruce Cran wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 02:00:51 -0700 > per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > >> Short of mounting synchronously, with the attendant performance >> hit, would it not make sense for fsync(2) to issue ATA_FLUSHCACHE >> or SCSI "SYNCHRONIZE CACHE" after it has finished writing data >> to the drive? Surely the low-level capability to issue those >> commands must already exist, else we would have no way to safely >> prepare for power off. > > mounting synchronously won't help, will it? As I understand it that > just makes sure that data is sent straight to disk and not left in > memory; the data will still be stored in the HDD cache for a > while.
Correct. The problem is actually pretty hard - since AFAIK SoftUpdates doesn't have "checkpoints" in the sense that it groups writes and all data "before" can guaranteed to be on-disk, the problem is *when* to issue BIO_FLUSH requests. One possible solution is to simply decide on a heuristic like: "ok, doing BIO_FLUSH all the time will destroy performance, we will only do it for every metadata write". Possibly with a sysctl tunable or per-mount option. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
