Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 11:53:02 +0200 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Help test softupdates journaling (SUJ) Message-ID: <4B4851FE.2020907@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <mailpost.1262998480.6342895.87899.mailing.freebsd.current@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> References: <mailpost.1262998480.6342895.87899.mailing.freebsd.current@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi. Jeff Roberson wrote: > I have been augmenting softupdates with a small journal that will be > processed in lieu of fsck in the event of a crash. I have written some > about this project here: http://jeffr_tech.livejournal.com/ Sounds cool, but I have one question. Excuse my possible ignorance. I was looking for BIO_FLUSH consumers and haven't found UFS there. Unbacked write caching probably can make SoftUpdates unreliable, but it is bearable while foreground fsck is used. As I understand, journaled recovery is more dependent on data coherency, and so needs either unbacked write caching to be disabled, or BIO_FLUSH to be used in respective points by FS code. Am I right? So what's about BIO_FLUSH? -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B4851FE.2020907>