Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:38:58 +0200
From:      Ronald Klop <ronald@not4mail.cs.vu.nl>
To:        "Brian T.Schellenberger" <bts@babbleon.org>
Cc:        stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: softupdates: any way to force sync?
Message-ID:  <3D370B42.3080504@not4mail.cs.vu.nl>
References:  <20020718135028.70DCBBB2C@this.is.fake.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following sysctl's define the delay before things are written to 
disk with softupdates. I think they work in realtime and setting them to 
3,2,1 for a little time wil sync the disk faster. But wil make the 
caching less efficient. So play with it for a while.

kern.filedelay: 30
kern.dirdelay: 29
kern.metadelay: 28

Greetings,

Ronald.

Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
> I have been running into some issues with the time it takes softupdates to 
> fully finish updating.  Recently I deleted a lot of files (about 3G worth of 
> files, actually), and it took over five minutes to really get the disk space 
> back.  Since I wanted to start up a process to re-fill the disk space, this 
> was a pain: the other process kept dying because it ran out of disk space.
> 
> Others have posted about similar difficulties with backups.  Of course 
> backing up a live filesystem can never be 100%, but it was in practical terms 
> closer before softupdates came along.
> 
> And yet, most of the time I *love* softupdates.  It makes the system 
> tolerable to use while turning write caching off, which makes me feel a whole 
> lot safer.  I've not had any (non-hardware-related) problems with disk 
> corruption since I started running softupdates and I had had corrupt 
> filesystems mulitiple times before.
> 
> So . . . 
> 
> What I'd like is a command like "syncupdates" or something that would 
> synchronosly force all the pending softupdates updates to update and return 
> only when that was complete.  Then when I had the (rare) occaisons where I 
> really wanted them synced up, they could be synched up but the rest of the 
> time I could still let it update when it pleased.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> - Is there any functionality already in the system that I don't know about?
> - Are there any plans to add it?
> - If not, I might have a go at it myself.  Other than your code and the 
> original paper are there any references or information that I should have in 
> hand?
> - And would you, Julian, be willing to review whatever I might come up with 
> and possibly commit it if it looks plausible?  (I don't run current so 
> whatever patches I'd come up with would be against -stable, but I presume 
> that doing a sort of "reverse MFC" to translate them to -current patches 
> wouldn't be terribly difficult.)
> 
> Please understand that though I've programming for many, many years I've only 
> done the very most trivial of things in the kernel before so I'd bring more 
> enthusiasm than expertise to such an undertaking.  I'd actually prefer if 
> this feature just sort of dropped into my lap, but I'm interested enough in 
> the feature to have a go at doing it myself.
> 
> Thanks for any insight you can offer.
> 
> 


-- 
  Ronald Klop, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  --> Remove the 'not4mail.' from the e-mail address before replying. <--


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D370B42.3080504>