![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Mar 18 2004, Peter Zaitsev wrote: > On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 22:47, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > There is solution just to disable drive write cache, but it seems to > > > slowdown performance way to much. > > > > Chris and I have working real fsync() with the barrier patches. I'll > > clean it up and post a patch for vanilla 2.6.5-rc today. > > Good to hear. How is it going to work from user point of view ? > Just fsync working back again or there would be some special handling. It's just going to work :) > Also. What is about fsync() in 2.6 nowadays ? > > I've done some tests on 3WARE RAID array and it looks like it is > different compared to 2.4 I've been testing previously. > > I have the simple test which has single page writes to the file followed > by fsync(). First run give you the case when file grows with each > write, second when you're writing to existing file space. > > The results I have on 2.4 is something like 40 sec per 1000 fsyncs for > new file, and 0.6 sec for existing file. > > With 2.6.3 I have both existing file and new file to complete in less > than 1 second. I believe some missed set_page_writeback() calls caused fsync() to never really wait on anything, pretty broken... IIRC, it's fixed in latest -mm, or maybe it's just pending for next release. -- Jens Axboe - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||