On 07/29/2010 07:07 PM, Tao Ma wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On 07/29/2010 08:00 PM, Jan Kara wrote: >> We have to issue a cache flush during fdatasync even if inode doesn't >> have >> I_DIRTY_DATASYNC set because we still have to get written *data* to >> disk to >> observe fdatasync() guarantees. > I am fine with the patch from the code's perspective. > > But I just noticed the discussion in fsdevel with the subject "relaxed > barrier semantics", so with barrier there will be a massive slowdowns > according to Christoph. And as ocfs2 is mainly used with some SAN, I > guess in most cases the storage will have a battery backed cache, so > we may not need this? > > Sunil, Joel and Mark, Did you have any user data that most of the > ocfs2 system is used on or can we start a survey in ocfs2-users?
A SAN with a battery backed cache is a safe assumption. That's why we don't enable barrier by default. _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
