> Has the reason for this been identified? Judging from the nature of metadata
> loads, it would seem that it should be substantially easier to implement
> fsync() efficiently.

By design a copy on write tree fs would need to flush a whole
tree hierarchy on a sync. btrfs avoids this by using a special
log for fsync, but that causes more overhead if you have that
log on the same disk.  So IO subsystem will do more work.

It's a bit like JBD data journaling.

However it should not have the stalls inherent in ext3's journaling.

a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to