From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 19 8:26:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu (bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu [128.226.1.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E9D37BCE1 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:26:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu) Received: from sol.cs.binghamton.edu (sol.cs.binghamton.edu [128.226.123.100]) by bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20117 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:26:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Zhihui Zhang To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Questions of the syncer process Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I have two questions related to the syncer process that replaces the old update process: (1) The syncer process is waken up once a second (it sleeps on lbolt). If I have more than 30 mounted filesystems, then each filesystem's dirty data will stay more than 30 seconds. If I only have a couple of filesystems, then the syncer will run more frequenty than the old update process. Is this a good choice? (2) I do not understand why vfs_msync(mp, MNT_NOWAIT) is called before VFS_SYNC(mp, MNT_LAZY,...). It seems to me that the latter includes the work done by the former. Thanks for any insights into this subject. -Zhihui To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message