[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Ext3 vs Reiserfs benchmarks
    On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 11:22, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
    > Consider this argument:
    > Given: On ext3, fsync() of any file on a partition commits all
    > outstanding transactions on that partition to the log.
    > Given: data=ordered forces pending data writes for a file to happen
    > before related transactions are committed to the log.
    > Therefore: With data=ordered, fsync() of any file on a partition
    > syncs the outstanding writes of EVERY file on that
    > partition.
    > Is this argument correct? If so, it suggests that data=ordered is
    > actually the *worst* possible journalling mode for a mail spool.

    Yes. In practice this doesn't hurt as much as it could, because ext3
    does a good job of letting more writers come in before forcing the
    commit. What hurts you is when a forced commit comes in the middle of
    creating the file. A data write that could have been contiguous gets
    broken into two or more writes instead.

    > One other thing. I think this statement is misleading:
    > IF your server is stable and not prone to crashing, and/or you
    > have the write cache on your hard drives battery backed, you
    > should strongly consider using the writeback journaling mode of
    > Ext3 versus ordered.
    > This makes it sound like data=writeback is somehow unsafe when
    > machines crash. I do not think this is true. If your application
    > (e.g., Postfix) is written correctly (which it is), so it calls
    > fsync() when it is supposed to, then data=writeback is *exactly* as
    > safe as any other journalling mode.

    Almost. data=writeback makes it possible for the old contents of a
    block to end up in a newly grown file. There are a few ways this can
    screw you up:

    1) that newly grown file is someone's inbox, and the old contents of the
    new block include someone else's private message.

    2) That newly grown file is a control file for the application, and the
    application expects it to contain valid data within (think sendmail).

    > "Battery backed caches" and the
    > like have nothing to do with it.

    Nope, battery backed caches don't make data=writeback more or less safe
    (with respect to the data anyway). They do make data=ordered and
    data=journal more safe.

    > And if your application is written
    > incorrectly, then other journalling modes will reduce but not
    > eliminate the chances for things to break catastrophically on a crash.
    > So if the partition is dedicated to correct applications, like a mail
    > spool is, then data=writeback is perfectly safe. If it is faster,
    > too, then it really is a no-brainer.

    For mail servers, data=journal is your friend. ext3 sometimes needs a
    bigger log for it (reiserfs data=journal patches don't), but the
    performance increase can be significant.


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.024 / U:3.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site