Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:56:31 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Journalling FS and Soft Updates comparision Message-ID: <420BE69F.6070009@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20050210222114.GA40240@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20050210030119.GD29396@alzatex.com> <420AD3A7.3000102@freebsd.org> <20050210222114.GA40240@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
uh.. isn't this backwards? Dan Nelson wrote: > >This is the big drawback to softupdates for me. You run the risk of >losing the last `sysctl kern.metadelay` seconds worth of files, because >of all the state that softupdates keeps in RAM. > > kern.filedelay: 30 kern.dirdelay: 29 kern.metadelay: 28 according to this we write the metadata first and then the directory block and then the file data.. This is just wrong. In softupdates you want to have your data down before you do your metadata write, and you need to have your directory block written last of all. When I committed the softupdates code for Kirk, I think that the numbers were: data in 10 seconds, metadata in 15 and directory block in 20. (from memory).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420BE69F.6070009>