| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <9b1675090904021754v3bcbb8cemd746c0d5f24362a4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:54:14 -0600 From: "Trenton D. Adams" <trenton.d.adams@...il.com> To: Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de> Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: EXT4-ish "fixes" in UBIFS On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Trenton D. Adams wrote: >> Oh, I should have clarified. It improves performance under heavy >> load. Under normal load, mounting without sync is fine. What I tend >> to do is mount with "remount,rw,sync" when heavy load is starting. > > Really? How does mounting with "-o sync" *improve* performance? I am > certainly aware that mounting with "-o sync" has severe performance > impacts, but was proposing it anyway *only* to tackle the data integrity > problem. However, I'm curious if usescaes in the embedded world are > equally affected by this. > Oh, well for my system, if I do heavy IO, my *fsync* performance drops like a rock. fsync on even 1M takes 15-20 seconds at times. I have even seen 50 seconds. If I mount with sync option, the fsyncs of 1M take only a couple hundred milliseconds, while the other heavy IO is happening. -- 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