[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49CD6BCC.6080602@garzik.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:14:04 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Ext3 latency improvement patches
Theodore Tso wrote:
> OTOH, the really big databases will tend to use direct I/O, so they
> won't be dirtying the page cache anyway. So maybe it's not worth the
Not necessarily... From what I understand, a lot of the individual
low-level components in cloud storage, such as GoogleFS's chunk
server[1] do not bypass the page cache, even though they do care about
the details of data caching and data consistency.
I am looking at the same areas for my own distributed storage work, and
am finding that the current crop of Linux-specific,
database/server-friendly syscalls permit more application control over
pagecache usage than in past years, decreasing the need for O_DIRECT.
Things like readahead(2), sync_file_range(2), fadvise(3), really help.
Jeff
[1] http://labs.google.com/papers/gfs-sosp2003.pdf
--
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