Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> > Andrew, can you do this such that there is no disruption of our
> > disk format, and make a mount option
> > out of it, and probably we should use this patch....
>
> I'll defer to Chris :)
Yes, I'll let him think carefully through the details of how it affects ordering of the writes.
>
> There's no disruption to disk format - it just simulates
> the user typing `sync' at the right time. I think the
> concept is sound, and I'm sure Chris can find a more efficient
> way...
Oops, sorry, you changed the in-ram not the on-disk sb....
>
> > After you make a mount option out of it, grev will benchmark
> > it for us using the usual suite of benchmarks.
> >
>
> Ordered-data is a funny thing. Under heavy loads it tends
> to make a significant throughput difference - on ext3 it
> almost halves throughput wrt writeback mode.
>
> But this by no means indicates that writes are half as slow;
> what happens is that metadata-intensive workloads fill the
> journal up quickly, so the `sync' happens more frequently.
> Under normal workloads, or less metadata-intense workloads
> the difference is very small.
>
> During testing of that little patch I noted that the
> disk went crunch every thirty seconds or so, which is good.
> Presumably the reiserfs journal is larger, or more space-efficient.
>
> -
Thanks Andrew
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:00:34 EST