"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 02:19:19 +0400, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I merely hypothesize that the maximum value of required
> > FLUSHTIME_NON_EXPANDING will usually be less than 1% of memory, and
> > therefor won't have an impact. It is not like keeping 1% of memory
> > around for use by text segments and other FLUSHTIME_NON_EXPANDING
> > buffers is likely to be a bad thing.
>
> That's probably enough for journaled filesystems, but with deferred
> allocation it definitely is not. If you have a lot of data to commit,
> then I guess that the tree operations required to push many tens of MB
> of data to disk could well exceed that 1%.
Ah, I see, the problem is that when you batch the commits they can be truly
huge, and they all have to commit for any of them to commit, and none of them
can be flushed until they all commit, is that it?
--
Get Linux (http://www.kernel.org) plus ReiserFS
(http://devlinux.org/namesys). If you sell an OS or
internet appliance, buy a port of ReiserFS! If you
need customizations and industrial grade support, we sell them.
