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  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]
Date:	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:51:11 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <>
Cc:	Daniel Phillips <>, David Chinner <>,
	Alan Cox <>,
	Theodore Tso <>, Al Boldi <>,
	Valerie Henson <>,
	Rik van Riel <>,,
Subject: Re: [Patch] document ext3 requirements (was Re: [RFD] Incremental


> > 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?
(cesky, pictures)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists