Re: fsync() Performance Issue

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Chris Mason wrote:

>On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 17:21, Hans Reiser wrote:
>  
>
>>>I'd rather not put it back in because it adds yet another corner case to
>>>maintain for all time.  Most of the fsync/O_SYNC bound applications are
>>>just given their own partition anyway, so most users that need data
>>>logging need it for every write.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Does mozilla's mail user agent use fsync?  Should I give it its own 
>>partition?  I bet it is fsync bound....;-)
>>    
>>
>
>[ I took Wayne off the cc list, he's probably not horribly interested ]
>
>Perhaps, but I'll also bet the fsync performance hit doesn't affect the
>performance of the system as a whole.
>
 I suspect that on my laptop, downloading emails is disk bound due to 
fsync()....  I haven't measured it, but it "feels" that way.

>
>Mostly, I feel this kind of tuning is a mistake right now.  The patch is
>young and there are so many places left to tweak...I'm still at the
>stage where much larger improvements are possible, and a better use of
>coding time.  Plus, it's monday and it's always more fun to debate than
>give in on mondays.
>
>-chris
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Needing more time to finish analyzing what is going on and what fixes it 
best is always a good reason to defer things....

Hans