[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480CD9CD.70607@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:15:41 -0400
From: Ric Wheeler <ric@....com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: Mentor for a GSoC application wanted (Online ext2/3 filesystem
checker)
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:42:42AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> [LVM] always disables barriers if you don't apply a so far unmerged
>>> patch that enables them in some special circumstances (only single
>>> backing device)
>> (I continue to be surprised at the un-safety of Linux fsync)
>
> Note barrier less does not necessarily always mean unsafe fsync,
> it just often means that.
>
> Also surprisingly lot more syncs or write cache off tend to lower the MTBF
> of your disk significantly, so "unsafer" fsync might actually be more safe
> for your unbackuped data.
>
Hi Andi,
Where did you get this data?
I have never heard that using more barrier operations lowers the reliability or
the MTBF of a drive and I look at a fairly huge population when doing this ;-)
ric
--
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