From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 20 20:33:11 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D1316A492; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:33:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6187C43D72; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:33:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [10.10.3.185] ([69.15.205.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k5KKWZMA004370; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:32:40 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <44985B5C.7090201@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:32:28 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060206 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Jakubik References: <20060619131101.GD1130@garage.freebsd.pl> <44984A91.8040805@rogers.com> <20060620193630.GA8007@garage.freebsd.pl> <1150833586.24301.1.camel@spirit> <44985586.2090504@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <44985586.2090504@rogers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Xin LI , freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Journaling UFS with gjournal. X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:33:11 -0000 Mike Jakubik wrote: > Xin LI wrote: > >> 在 2006-06-20二的 21:36 +0200,Pawel Jakub Dawidek写道: >> >> >>> The performance impact is big for large files, because in theory we have >>> to write the data twice. >>> Yes, it eliminates need for SU, but there are reasons, that you still >>> want to use SU, eg. for snapshots. >>> >> >> >> Em... IIRC SU and snapshots are independent, no? >> >> Cheers, >> > > > What about mounting the filesystem async though? It was my understanding > that the Linux filesystems were much faster in benchmarks because they > were mounted async by default, however the presence of journaling > allowed this safely. Is this the case here too? > Yes, async mounting is much faster that sync mounting, and slightly faster than SU, except when SU is dealing with huge data sets. Then async is significantly faster. Scott