| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 07:54:48 +0000 From: "Sidorov, Andrei" <Andrei.Sidorov@...isi.com> To: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Barriers Hi, I'm curious if anyone ever tried fua-only jbd? If done with fua's, there will be no cache flushes at all, thus no occasional spikes. NCQ fua journalling is potentially more efficient than cache flush. I know, stale data will be unavoidable (however unlikely) in fua-based implementation. It is a compromise between ordered,nobarrier (fs corruption is likely to happen upon power loss) and ordered,barrier (no fs corruption). Any advise on what kind of workload to test? What about having single journal per device as opposed to partition/fs? What I've found of quick look at jbd2 code, it doesn't seem to be a problem to set up single journal for several filesystems on the same device. This will give an advantage of single commit per commit interval as opposed to several commits per likely to be same interval. -- Regards, Andrei. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists