From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Apr 13 21:52:53 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2CE37B401
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4DA43F3F
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:52:52 -0700 (PDT)	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3E4qlA7049053;
	Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:52:48 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:51:42 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20030413.225142.39143716.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: allbery@ece.cmu.edu
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.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: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: bright@mu.org
cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: PATCH: Forcible delaying of UFS (soft)updates
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 04:52:54 -0000

In message: <1050134860.7300.0.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.apk.net>
            "Brandon S. Allbery " KF8NH <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> writes:
: 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 make
: > any 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.

Trouble is that lots of things uses fsync behind the scenes...

Warner