> 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. -Andi -- 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