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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44985B5C.7090201>