Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:59:29 -0500 | From | Brian Gerst <> | Subject | Re: Linux should better cope with power failure |
| |
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Brian Gerst wrote: > [SNIPPED...] > > > > > At the very least the disk should be consistent with memory. If the > > dirty pages aren't written back to the disk (but not necessarily removed > > from memory) after a reasonable idle period, then there is room for > > improvement. > > > > Hmmm. Now think about it a minute. You have a database operation > with a few hundred files open, most of which will be deleted after > a sort/merge completes. At the same time, you've got a few thousand > directories with their ATIME being updated. Also, you have thousands > of temporary files being created in /tmp during a compile that didn't > use "-pipe". > > If you periodically write everything to disk, you don't have many > CPU cycles available to do anything useful.
Note the key words "reasonable idle period". It was stated elsewhere that this is the case already so it is a moot point.
--
Brian Gerst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |