From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Apr 12 06:55:33 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9041137B401; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 06:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sentry.24cl.com (174.113.sn.ct.dsl.thebiz.net
	[216.238.113.174])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C0AC643F75; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 06:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from zlists@mgm51.com)
Received: from winbloat (unknown [10.0.1.10])
	by sentry.24cl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C47BF2942D; Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:55:31 -0400 (EDT)
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>
X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.01 (4)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:55:31 -0400
From: "MikeM" <zlists@mgm51.com>
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: PATCH: Forcible delaying of UFS (soft)updates
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 13:55:33 -0000

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