linux-ext4 - Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:14:04 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To:	"Jeffrey W. Baker" <jwbaker@....org>
CC:	zfs-discuss@...nsolaris.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ZFS, XFS, and EXT4 compared

Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 13:57 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:

>> barrier seems to hurt badly on xfs, too.  Note: barrier is off by
>> default on ext[34], so if you want apples to apples there, you need to
>> change one or the other filesystem's mount options.  If your write cache
>> is safe (battery backed?) you may as well turn barriers off.  I'm not
>> sure offhand who will react more poorly to an evaporating write cache
>> (with no barriers), ext4 or xfs...
> 
> I didn't compare the safety of the three filesystems, 

Understood

> but I did have
> disk caches disabled 

Oh, so for the SW raid tests the individual disks had no write cache?f

> and only battery-backed caches enabled.  Do you
> need barriers without volatile caches?

As far as I understand it, then nope, you don't need it, and you're
hurting performance with it.

-Eric
-
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