[lkml]   [1999]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: softupdates and ext2
    Trevor Johnson <> writes:

    > > I made some benchs and it seems rather fast (about 5 to 10% slower than
    > > the async mount, which is what Linux does).
    > It does that by default, but (for ext2 at least) you can mount with the
    > "sync" option to have at least the metadata written synchronously. It is
    > much slower than the asynchronous way, but I would do it if the unclean
    > shutdowns couldn't be prevented.

    The reason the "sync" option is so slow is because it makes _all_ writes
    synchronous. The default of sync metadata / async userdata used by most
    Unixen is not noticeably slower than async except for large metadata
    operations like removing large directory trees.

    E.g. when testing with bonnie on a system using sync/async as default,
    there is no visible difference from using "async". But when using "sync"
    on a Linux system, the write performance dropped to ~80kbyte/s (on a
    disk that writes ~8Mbytes/s using "async").

    Mats Lofkvist

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.030 / U:0.488 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site