[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck)
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
>> disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
>> using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
>> It would be awfully nice to know which brands fail here, if any,
>> because writeback cache is a big performance booster.
> AFAIK no drive saves the cache. The worst case cache flush for drives is
> several seconds with no retries and a couple of minutes if something
> really bad happens.
> This is why the kernel has some knowledge of barriers and uses them to
> issue flushes when needed.

Problem is, ext3 has barriers off by default so it's not saving most people.

And then if you turn them on, but have your filesystem on an lvm device,
lvm strips them out again.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-16 22:31    [W:0.558 / U:1.360 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site