On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 15:03, Bart Samwel wrote: > On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 21:52, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > Bart, did you consider jfs along with the other file systems? > > Nope. I've never heard anybody asking for JFS support before, so I > haven't considered it. > > About what laptop mode needs: if JFS doesn't initiate any write activity > at all unless blocks are flushed by pdflush, then you're safe. I'm not > quite sure what you mean by "current activity" though, so there might be > a problem depending on what that means.
All I meant by that is that if a thread were actively writing to jfs (or creating, renaming, deleting files, etc.) that that activity may cause older data & metadata to be written. This is such an obvious statement, I really didn't need to say it. > Other journalling filesystems > all have some kind of "transaction lifetime limit", usually 1 to 5 > seconds, which will commit a transaction if it lives longer than that. > And committing means *writing*, at least to the journal. Can you give me > some more info? jfs doesn't really have such a transaction lifetime limit. It pretty much depends on pdflush to initiate writeout of dirty inodes, at which time outstanding transactions are committed to disk. > > Do you > > have any suggestions for making jfs behave better on a laptop? > > > > I admit that I haven't played with laptop mode yet. > > I think that should be the first step, before we go investigating if we > need anything more. I'll try and check it out, I have some standard test > scenarios so I'll follow up on this as soon as I've run them. Thanks, let me know if I can do anything to help. > > --Bart Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
