Re: Linux kernel turning for mail performance?

[nascheme]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:07:47PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Neither does vanilla FFS (which is apparently Dan's
> benchmark for reliability).  That's why the fsync()
> call was invented.  FFS/softupdates honors fsync
> calls, FFS/async does not.  That's the difference.

I believe that ext2 honors fsync() as well (but not in 2.3 yet).
Could someone who knows more confirm?  The metadata is still
asyncronous though so FFS with softupdates is probably better.

Also note the journalling version ResierFS only writes metadata
to the journal.  ext3 journals both data and metadata.  You
want both for qmail.


    Neil