From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Apr 11 20:33:08 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 2D58037B401; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CAEBC43FD7; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id B82A92ED410; Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:33:07 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
To: Marko Zec <zec@tel.fer.hr>
Message-ID: <20030412033307.GR30960@elvis.mu.org>
References: <3E976EBD.C3E66EF8@tel.fer.hr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E976EBD.C3E66EF8@tel.fer.hr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
cc: mckusick@McKusick.COM
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: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 03:33:08 -0000

* Marko Zec <zec@tel.fer.hr> [030411 19:01] wrote:
> 
> When enabled, the extended delaying policy introduces some additional
> changes:
> 
> - 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.

otherwise, way cool!

-Alfred