linux-ext4 - Re: Severe slowdown caused by jbd2 process

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-id: <4D3B03FA.4040604@shiftmail.org>
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:21:14 +0100
From:	torn5 <torn5@...ftmail.org>
To:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	torn5 <torn5@...ftmail.org>, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
	Jon Leighton <j@...athanleighton.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Severe slowdown caused by jbd2 process

On 01/22/2011 02:34 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> ....
>
> At the end of the day, though, if the application protocol design is
> stupid, there's not much you can do.
> ....

Thanks for your reply.
You are right, now I'm starting to understand that what I was trying to 
achieve was actually a change in the application logic...

I'd have a different question now:
Is the fsync in a nobarrier mount totally swallowed?
If not:
a) what guarantees does it provide in a nobarrier situation and
b) is there a "fakefsync" mount option or some other way to make it a 
no-op? (I understand the risk, and the fact that this is actually a 
change in the application's logic)
--
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