| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <532480950908261530p2113b0cct22abf1f5ee0c0f2a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:30:53 -0700 From: Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com> To: fmayhar@...gle.com Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problem with ext4_sync_file in no-journal mode. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Frank Mayhar<fmayhar@...gle.com> wrote: > That's what you would think, isn't it? However, you (and we) would be > wrong. In our testing, ext4+fsync was significantly worse than ext4 > without fsync. Like, six times worse. Yes, this is a nonintuitive > result and no, I can't yet explain it. Frank is referring to (ext4 with no_journal)+fsync compared to ext4 with no journal and no fsync. With the journal everything is working as reliably as expected. We will be publishing data for all the permutations of crashes and power cycles we have tested as soon as we are confident in all the data. mrubin -- 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