Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Apr 2009 02:19:53 +0100 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: Ext4 and the "30 second window of death" |
| |
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 06:16:20PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > >On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 05:55:11PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > >>On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>>Then they shouldn't use a mail client that fsync()s. > >> > >>so they need to use one mail client when they want to have good battery > >>life and a different one when they are plugged in to power? > > > >They need to make a decision about whether they care about their mailbox > >being precisely in sync with their server or not, and either use a > >client that adapts appropriately or choose a client that behaves > >appropriately. It's certainly not the kernel's business. > > the kernel is not deciding this, the kernel would be implementing the > user's choice
No it wouldn't. The kernel would be implementing an adminstrator's choice about whether fsync() is important or not. That's something that would affect the mail client, but it's hardly a decision based on the mail client. Sucks to be that user if they do anything involving mysql.
> >If you can demonstrate a real world use case where the hard drive > >(typically well under a watt of power consumption on modern systems) > >spindown policy will be affected sufficiently pathologically by a mail > >client that you lose an hour of battery life, then I'd rethink this. But > >mostly I'd conclude that this was an example of an inappropriate > >spindown policy. > > remember that the mail client was an example. > > you want another example, think of anything that uses sqlite (like the > firefox history stuff, although that was weakened drasticly due to the > ext3 problems).
Benchmarks please. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |