lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: EXT4-ish "fixes" in UBIFS
    From
    On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de> 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
    happening.
    --
    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: 2009-04-03 02:57    [W:0.021 / U:58.800 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site