From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GeeHq-0005nX-6u for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:03:15 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9UL17q9021757; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:01:07 GMT Received: from mail.liveops.com (mail-pai.liveops.com [209.157.154.34]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9UKwnP1015328 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:58:53 GMT Received: from [192.168.32.55] ([192.168.32.55]) by mail.liveops.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:58:47 -0800 Message-ID: <45466788.1090602@megahappy.net> Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:58:48 -0800 From: Bryan Whitehead User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] BIG reiserfs problem References: <454338D3.2000504@exceedtech.net> <45436C00.5020405@gmail.com> <200610282339.44017.alan@linuxholdings.co.za> <45466541.4000404@megahappy.net> In-Reply-To: <45466541.4000404@megahappy.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Oct 2006 20:58:47.0949 (UTC) FILETIME=[31D42BD0:01C6FC66] X-Archives-Salt: 84d7e0ff-48a9-40a2-882d-fe5825bac8c9 X-Archives-Hash: f12e96bb18d7e550063dbf1318d2db58 After sending this I realized that XFS doesn't support journal=data... I thought journal=data was a general VFS part of the linux kernel... my bad. :) I guess you are just left with in kernel tuning (someone previously posted a link to). Bryan Whitehead wrote: > If you are so concerned with the awesomeness of XFS's caching... why > not turn on data-journaling? Then data (not just meta-data) is > committed to the journal. > > You can also tune XFS to not wait so long to hold cached data. > > Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote: >> >>> Dale ha scritto: >>> >>>> If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like >>>> power failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig >>>> because of this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK. >>>> >>> Thanks a lot for the advice. Power outages do happen and I don't have >>> an UPS. Why does it happen? Isn't XFS journaled? >>> >> >> Yes it is journaled but it also allows data to be very aggressively >> cached. Make that VERY aggressively cached. With the result that data >> can be held in a huge cache somewhere and the kernel can be convinced >> it has been written to disk. >> >> Consider XFS's pedigree - SGI wrote it for their graphics machines. >> These were big monsters backed up with high grade UPSs and such - the >> logic was that if you spend a brazillion bucks on hardware, a mega >> UPS is part of the deal, along with the wages to pay the army of >> admins you also need. >> >> And, when doing video rendering, it turns out that it's easier to >> simply re-render a frame when the filesystems does something odd with >> the data rather than go to the effort of writing an FS that is 100% >> reliable. So SGI sacrificed something that doesn't actually matter >> for their use case to gain a significant performace increase (which >> does matter a great deal) >> >> alan >> > -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list