lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Ext4 and the "30 second window of death"
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:08:36PM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Well, yes, the administrator could hate the user. They could achieve the
> >same affect by just LD_PRELOADING something that stubbed out fsync() and
> >inserted random data into every other write(). We generally trust that
> >admins won't do that.
>
> then trust the admins to make a reasonable decision for or with the user
> on this as well.

What a reasonable decision is here depends on what software the user is
running. There simply isn't a reasonable default other than to allow
fsync() to work. Changing requires auditing every single piece of code
the user may run.

> >There's various circumstances in which it's beneficial. The difference
> >between an optimal algorithm for typical use and an optimal algorithm
> >for typical use where there's an fsync() every 5 minutes isn't actually
> >that great.
>
> mixing some sub-threads a bit to combine thoughts
>
> you object to calling something like this 'laptop mode'
>
> Ted's statements about laptop mode indicate that he believes that it
> delays writes for a configurable time rather than accelerating writes.

As I said, the code is pretty easy to read.

(snip)

> thoughts?

I've certainly got no objection to the addition of a mode that changes
the behaviour of fsync() - personally I think it would be an error for
almost anyone to use it, but that's really up to the individual
situation. But it would have a different goal to the existing
laptop-mode and so should have a different name in order to avoid
confusion.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-03 15:45    [W:0.111 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site