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
: 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
additional testing
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 have
to protect
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 every
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 users that
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-from-ftp?
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
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 Issue
Hello!
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002
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
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.
Also
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
On Tue
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 client has
passed it to the server. Therefore, I have disabled write cache on
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
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 performance
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
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
with one
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 after all
-
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 occurred
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
[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 applications, be
20 matches
Mail list logo
