Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:32:28 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Journaling UFS with gjournal. Message-ID: <44985B5C.7090201@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <44985586.2090504@rogers.com> References: <20060619131101.GD1130@garage.freebsd.pl> <44984A91.8040805@rogers.com> <20060620193630.GA8007@garage.freebsd.pl> <1150833586.24301.1.camel@spirit> <44985586.2090504@rogers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Jakubik wrote: > Xin LI wrote: > >> 在 2006-06-20二的 21:36 +0200，Pawel Jakub Dawidek写道： >> >> >>> The performance impact is big for large files, because in theory we have >>> to write the data twice. >>> Yes, it eliminates need for SU, but there are reasons, that you still >>> want to use SU, eg. for snapshots. >>> >> >> >> Em... IIRC SU and snapshots are independent, no? >> >> Cheers, >> > > > What about mounting the filesystem async though? It was my understanding > that the Linux filesystems were much faster in benchmarks because they > were mounted async by default, however the presence of journaling > allowed this safely. Is this the case here too? > Yes, async mounting is much faster that sync mounting, and slightly faster than SU, except when SU is dealing with huge data sets. Then async is significantly faster. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44985B5C.7090201>