[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080125153634.GG28856@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:36:34 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ext3: per-process soft-syncing data=ordered mode
> Greetings!
>
> data=ordered mode has proven reliable over the years, and it does this by
> ordering filedata flushes before metadata flushes. But this sometimes
> causes contention in the order of a 10x slowdown for certain apps, either
> due to the misuse of fsync or due to inherent behaviour like db's, as well
> as inherent starvation issues exposed by the data=ordered mode.
>
> data=writeback mode alleviates data=order mode slowdowns, but only works
> per-mount and is too dangerous to run as a default mode.
>
> This RFC proposes to introduce a tunable which allows to disable fsync and
> changes ordered into writeback writeout on a per-process basis like this:
>
> echo 1 > /proc/`pidof process`/softsync
I guess disabling fsync() was already commented on enough. Regarding
switching to writeback mode on per-process basis - not easily possible
because sometimes data is not written out by the process which stored
them (think of mmaped file). And in case of DB, they use direct-io
anyway most of the time so they don't care about journaling mode anyway.
But as Diego wrote, there is definitely some room for improvement in
current data=ordered mode so the difference shouldn't be as big in the
end.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
--
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