[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480CDBFD.30009@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:25:01 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: ric@....com
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
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)
Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> 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, what about the other part - turning write cache off? I've also
heard it suggested that this might hurt drive lifespan, and it sorta
makes sense, I assume it keeps the head working harder...
-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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists