linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.29

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:19:10 -0400
From:	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...izon.net>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29

On Friday 27 March 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:05:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Alan. Repeat after me: "fsync()+close() is basically useless for any app
>> that expects user interaction under load".
>>
>> That's a FACT, not an opinion.
>
>This is a fact for ext3 with data=ordered mode.  Which is the default
>and dominant filesystem today, yes.  But it's not true for most other
>filesystems.  Hopefully at some point we will migrate people off of
>ext3 to something better.  Ext4 is available today, and is much better
>at this than ext4.  In the long run, btrfs will be better yet.  The
>issue then is how do we transition people away from making assumptions
>that were essentially only true for ext3's data=ordered mode.  Ext4,
>btrfs, XFS, all will have the property that if you fsync() a small
>file, it will be fast, and it won't inflict major delays for other
>programs running on the same system.
>
>You've said for a long that that ext3 is really bad in that it
>inflicts this --- I agree with you.  People should use other
>filesystems which are better.  This includes ext4, which is completely
>format compatible with ext3.  They don't even have to switch on
>extents support to get better behaviour.  Just mounting an ext3
>filesystem with ext4 will result in better behaviour.

Ohkay.  But in a 'make xconfig' of 2.6.28.9, how much of ext4 can be turned on 
without rendering the old ext3 fstab defaults incompatible should I be forced 
to boot a kernel with no ext4 support?

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Never look a gift horse in the mouth.
		-- Saint Jerome

--
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/