[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080119145111.GF24512@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:51:11 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...gle.com>, David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>,
Valerie Henson <val.henson@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Incremental
fsck)
Hi!
> > I guess I should try to measure it. (Linux already does writeback
> > caching, with 2GB of memory. I wonder how important disks's 2MB of
> > cache can be).
>
> It serves essentially the same purpose as the 'async' option in /etc/exports
> (i.e. we declare it "done" when the other end of the wire says it's caught
> the data, not when it's actually committed), with similar latency wins. Of
> course, it's impedance-matching for bursty traffic - the 2M doesn't do much
> at all if you're streaming data to it. For what it's worth, the 80G Seagate
> drive in my laptop claims it has 8M, so it probably does 4 times as much
> good as 2M. ;)
I doubt "impedance-matching" is useful here. SATA link is fast/low
latency, and kernel already does buffering with main memory...
Hmm... what is the way to measure that? Tar decompress kernel few
times with cache on / cache off?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists