Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:55:31 -0400 From: "MikeM" <zlists@mgm51.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Forcible delaying of UFS (soft)updates Message-ID: <200304120955310896.003EC3EE@sentry.24cl.com> In-Reply-To: <1050134860.7300.0.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.apk.net> References: <3E976EBD.C3E66EF8@tel.fer.hr> <20030412033307.GR30960@elvis.mu.org> <1050134860.7300.0.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.apk.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/12/2003 at 4:07 AM Brandon S. Allbery wrote: |On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 23:33, Alfred Perlstein wrote: |> * Marko Zec <zec@tel.fer.hr> [030411 19:01] wrote: |> > - fsync() no longer flushes the buffers to disk, but returns |immediately |> > instead; |> |> This is really the only bad thing I can see here, what about |> introducing a slight delay and seeing if one can coalesce the |> writes? Is this part really needed? Making fsync() not work |> is a good way to makeany sort of userland based transactional |> system break badly. | |If you're running that kind of thing you really don't want to be |using extended delays anyway, I'd think. ============= Perhaps a second parm for this patch: enable_suicidal_fsync with a default of NO
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200304120955310896.003EC3EE>