From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] snapshots of busy ext2 file system corrupt Message-Id: <20020226162123.D12832@lynx.adilger.int> References: <20020226095919.F12832@lynx.adilger.int> <2412370000.1014745130@tiny> <2621690000.1014757084@tiny> <20020226142731.X12832@lynx.adilger.int> <20020226223230.GE5066@merlins.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020226223230.GE5066@merlins.org>; from marc_lvm@merlins.org on Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:32:30PM -0800 Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue Feb 26 17:21:01 2002 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Feb 26, 2002 14:32 -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:27:31PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > Well, in many cases, data=ordered is actually faster than data=writeback > > because you get all of your journal I/O finished before you start writing > > to the FS. In some cases (e.g. mail spool, NFS) it is faster to have > > data=journal for the same reason (because sync I/O is very fast when it > > is written to the journal). > > I had heard about data=journal on mail spools, but does anyone have a > pointer with more performance comparisons between all 3? There was some discussion about it on one of (linux-kernel, ext3-users, ext2-devel), but since I read all of them, I don't know which one for sure. I found: http://bruce-guenter.dyndns.org/benchmarking/ http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fs8.html?dwzone=linux Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/