On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Bill Huey wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:50:34PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Oh, well.. Journalling sucks.
I was actually _really_ hoping that somebody would come along and tell
everybody that this whole journal-logging is stupid, and that it's just
better to not ever
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Bill Huey wrote:
Hi
SpadFS doesn't write to unallocated parts like log filesystems (LFS) or
phase tree filesystems (TUX2);
--- BTW, I don't think that writing to unallocated parts of disk is good
idea. These filesystems have
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:31:30 -0600
Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2007 08:30 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On a good filesystem, when you do "fsync()" on a file, nothing at all
> > happens to any other files. On ext3, it seems to sync the global journal,
> > which mea
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:50:34PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Oh, well.. Journalling sucks.
>
> I was actually _really_ hoping that somebody would come along and tell
> everybody that this whole journal-logging is stupid, and that it's just
> better to not ever re-write blocks on disk, but i
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andreas Dilger wrote:
It's true that this is a "feature" of ext3 with data=ordered (the default),
but I suspect the same thing is now true in reiserfs too.
Oh, well.. Journalling sucks.
Go back to ext2? ;)
I was actually _really_ hoping that someb
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 07:46:13PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> If one insists to have fd at first argument, what is wrong with
> having u32 arguments only?
Well, I was one of those who objected as it seems *UGLY* to me.
> It's not that this syscall comes even close to what can be
> considered
Andreas Dilger wrote:
Ah, one thing that is only mentioned in the URL is that the "IO count" is
in units of 512-byte sectors. In the case of XFS doing logical journaling
this avoids a huge amount of double writes to the journal and then to the
filesystem. I still think ext4 could do better than
On Apr 27, 2007 15:41 +0200, Valerie Clement wrote:
> As asked by Alex, I included in the test results the file fragmentation
> level and the number of I/Os done during the file deletion.
>
> Here are the results obtained with a not very fragmented 100-GB file:
>
> | ext3
On Apr 27, 2007 14:33 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > Here are the results obtained with a not very fragmented 100-GB file:
> >
> > | ext3 ext4 + extents xfs
> >
> > nb of fragments | 796
Linus Torvalds wrote:
There was even somebody who did something like that for a PhD thesis, I
forget the details (and it apparently died when the thesis was presumably
accepted ;).
You mean SpadFS[1] right ?
Linus
Gabriel
[1] http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.c
The idea has not died and some NAS/file server vendors have already been
doing this for some time. (I am not sure but is WAFS the same thing?)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-kernel-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> It's true that this is a "feature" of ext3 with data=ordered (the default),
> but I suspect the same thing is now true in reiserfs too.
Oh, well.. Journalling sucks.
I was actually _really_ hoping that somebody would come along and tell
everybody
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 13:31 -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I believe
> Alex has a patch to have it checkpoint much smaller chunks to the fs.
I wouldn't be averse to test driving such a patch (understatement). You
have a pointer?
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsub
On Apr 27, 2007 08:30 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On a good filesystem, when you do "fsync()" on a file, nothing at all
> happens to any other files. On ext3, it seems to sync the global journal,
> which means that just about *everything* that writes even a single byte
> (well, at least anyt
Valerie Clement wrote:
As asked by Alex, I included in the test results the file fragmentation
level and the number of I/Os done during the file deletion.
Here are the results obtained with a not very fragmented 100-GB file:
| ext3 ext4 + extents xfs
---
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:41:19PM +0200, Valerie Clement wrote:
> As asked by Alex, I included in the test results the file fragmentation
> level and the number of I/Os done during the file deletion.
>
> Here are the results obtained with a not very fragmented 100-GB file:
>
>
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:43:28PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Fri, 27 April 2007 14:10:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> >
> > After long discussions where at least two possible implementations
> > were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one
> > which doesn't and causes
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Marat Buharov wrote:
>
> On 4/27/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Aside: why the heck do applications think that their data is so important
> > that they need to fsync it all the time. I used to run a kernel on my
> > laptop which had "return 0;" at the top o
On Fri, 27 April 2007 14:10:03 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
>
> After long discussions where at least two possible implementations
> were suggested that would work on _all_ architectures you chose one
> which doesn't and causes extra effort.
I believe the long discussion also showed that every po
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
No way is globally disabling fsync() a good thing. I guess Andrew just
is a sucker for punishment :-)
Mmm... perhaps another nice thing to include in laptop-mode operation?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
As asked by Alex, I included in the test results the file fragmentation
level and the number of I/Os done during the file deletion.
Here are the results obtained with a not very fragmented 100-GB file:
| ext3 ext4 + extents xfs
---
Marat Buharov wrote:
On 4/27/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aside: why the heck do applications think that their data is so important
that they need to fsync it all the time. I used to run a kernel on my
laptop which had "return 0;" at the top of fsync() and fdatasync(). Most
ple
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 15:59 +0400, Marat Buharov wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Aside: why the heck do applications think that their data is so important
> > that they need to fsync it all the time. I used to run a kernel on my
> > laptop which had "return 0;" at
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:20:56PM +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the
> interface for fallocate() system call:
>
> asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
>
> It seems that only s390 architecture has a
On 4/27/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aside: why the heck do applications think that their data is so important
that they need to fsync it all the time. I used to run a kernel on my
laptop which had "return 0;" at the top of fsync() and fdatasync(). Most
pleasurable.
So, if hav
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 01:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Another livelock possibility is that bonnie is redirtying pages faster than
> commit can write them out, so commit got livelocked:
>
> When I was doing the original port-from-2.2 I found that an application
> which does
>
> for ( ;
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 01:33 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:59:27 +0200 Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > As subject states, my GUI is going away for extended periods of time
> > when my very full and likely highly fragmented (how to find out)
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:59:27 +0200 Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As subject states, my GUI is going away for extended periods of time
> when my very full and likely highly fragmented (how to find out)
> filesystem is under heavy write load. While write is under way,
28 matches
Mail list logo
