On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 21:17, Manuel Krause wrote:
> On 05/07/2002 12:57 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Chris & Hans!
>
> Don't think this somekind of destructive discussion would lead to
> anything useful for now, can you post a diff for
> 2.4.19-pre7+latest-related-pending +compound-patch-f
On 05/07/2002 12:57 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 17:21, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>>>I'd rather not put it back in because it adds yet another corner case to
>>>maintain for all time. Most of the fsync/O_SYNC bound applications are
>>>just given their own partition anyway, so most
Chris Mason wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 17:21, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>
>>>I'd rather not put it back in because it adds yet another corner case to
>>>maintain for all time. Most of the fsync/O_SYNC bound applications are
>>>just given their own partition anyway, so most users that need data
>
On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 17:21, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> >I'd rather not put it back in because it adds yet another corner case to
> >maintain for all time. Most of the fsync/O_SYNC bound applications are
> >just given their own partition anyway, so most users that need data
> >logging need it for eve
Chris Mason wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 10:59, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>
>>So how about if you revise fsync so that it always sends data blocks to
>>the journal not to the main disk?
>>
>>
>
>This gets a little sticky.
>
>Once you log a block, it might be replayed after a crash. So, you ha
Chris Mason wrote:
>On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 10:59, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>
>>So how about if you revise fsync so that it always sends data blocks to
>>the journal not to the main disk?
>>
>>
>
>This gets a little sticky.
>
>Once you log a block, it might be replayed after a crash. So, you ha
TED]]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue
On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 16:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris, I have some quick preliminary results for you. I have
> addit
On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 10:59, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> So how about if you revise fsync so that it always sends data blocks to
> the journal not to the main disk?
This gets a little sticky.
Once you log a block, it might be replayed after a crash. So, you have
to protect against corner cases like
Hello!
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 07:07:18AM +0200, Christian Stuke wrote:
> Could we have this for 2.4.18+ pending also please?
This patch would apply to 2.4.18 + pending patches, I believe.
As for including these patchs into pending queue for 2.4.18, this is impossible
now, it is too big of a cha
Could we have this for 2.4.18+ pending also please?
Chris
- Original Message -
From: "Oleg Drokin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issu
Thanks. I'll start putting this one into test.
Wayne.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:28 AM
To: Oleg Drokin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue
O
On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 10:20, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Attached is a speedup patch for 2.4.19-pre7 that should help your fsync
> operations a little. (From Chris Mason).
> Filesystem cannot do very much at this point unfortunatelly, it is ending up
> waiting for disk to finish write operations.
>
> A
Hello!
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:28:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how
> to improve the performance of a system employing fsync(). I have to be able
> to guaranty that every write to my fileserver is on disk when the cl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:56:59 +0200, Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
>
>
>>Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns after all blocks are
>>on disk. While I'm not sure if and if yes, which, Linux file systems are
>>affected, but for portable appli
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:56:59 +0200, Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns after all blocks are
> on disk. While I'm not sure if and if yes, which, Linux file systems are
> affected, but for portable applications, be aware that sync() may r
-
From: Chris Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Russell Coker; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] fsync() Performance Issue
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:32, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> >One thing that has occur
Toby Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> write to file A
> write to file B
> write to file C
> sync
Be careful with this approach. Apart from syncing other processes' dirty
data, sync() does not make the same guarantees as fsync() does.
Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns afte
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:32, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> >One thing that has occurred to me (which has not been previously discussed as
> >far as I recall) is the possibility for using sync() instead of fsync() if
> >you can accumulate a number of files (and therefore replace many fsync()'s
> >wit
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:20, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It's interesting to note your email address and what it implies...
>
> > I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how
> > to improve the performance of a system e
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:20:18 +0200, Russell Coker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>It's interesting to note your email address and what it implies...
>
>> I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how
>> to improve the pe
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's interesting to note your email address and what it implies...
> I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how
> to improve the performance of a system employing fsync(). I have to be able
> to guaranty that every
21 matches
Mail list logo
