linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 May 2008 13:05:45 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, jamie@...reable.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] (RESEND) ext3[34] barrier changes

On Fri, 16 May 2008 14:02:46 -0500
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:

> A collection of patches to make ext3 & 4 use barriers by
> default, and to call blkdev_issue_flush on fsync if they
> are enabled.

Last time this came up lots of workloads slowed down by 30% so I
dropped the patches in horror.

I just don't think we can quietly go and slow everyone's machines down
by this much.  The overhead of journalling is already pretty horrid.

If we were seeing a significant number of "hey, my disk got wrecked"
reports which attributable to this then yes, perhaps we should change
the default.  But I've never seen _any_, although I've seen claims that
others have seen reports.

There are no happy solutions here, and I'm inclined to let this dog
remain asleep and continue to leave it up to distributors to decide
what their default should be.

Do we know which distros are enabling barriers by default?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/