[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: EXT4-ish "fixes" in UBIFS
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Christian Kujau <> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Trenton D. Adams wrote:
>> Oh, I should have clarified.  It improves performance under heavy
>> load.  Under normal load, mounting without sync is fine.  What I tend
>> to do is mount with "remount,rw,sync" when heavy load is starting.
> Really? How does mounting with "-o sync" *improve* performance? I am
> certainly aware that mounting with "-o sync" has severe performance
> impacts, but was proposing it anyway *only* to tackle the data integrity
> problem. However, I'm curious if usescaes in the embedded world are
> equally affected by this.

Oh, well for my system, if I do heavy IO, my *fsync* performance drops
like a rock. fsync on even 1M takes 15-20 seconds at times. I have
even seen 50 seconds. If I mount with sync option, the fsyncs of 1M
take only a couple hundred milliseconds, while the other heavy IO is
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: 2009-04-03 02:57    [W:0.049 / U:18.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site