From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manuel Krause Subject: Re: [PATCH CFT] tons of logging patches Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 05:28:50 +0200 Message-ID: <3CFC33F2.7080009@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> References: <1023076301.22608.1778.camel@tiny> <3CFC1CB5.8040102@mb.tu-ilmenau.de> <1023157228.31475.38.camel@tiny> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Chris Mason Cc: reiserfs-list On 06/04/2002 04:20 AM, Chris Mason wrote: > On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 21:49, Manuel Krause wrote: > >>I really got rid of my "usual setup": the speedup-compound-patch(with >>iicache-15?), akpm and aa patches for this testing now (mostly due to >>all these many rejects I got that Dieter had promised already... and due >>to the fact I have no time to understand->adjust them all manually at >>the moment). >>I can't believe it, really, but I even left the other settings alone... ;-) > > > ;-) :-)) Makes some things and testings easier, I see, and some things faster??? ;-) Mmh... > > >>Now it is "only": >>Kernel.2.4.19-pre9 >>ReiserFS.pending.01..03,05 (rest doesn't cooperate cleanly) >>ReiserFS.mason.01..03 (maybe slightly modified for this) >>rml.preempt-kernel ( -"- ) >> >>/ mounted -o noatime,notail,data=logging >> >>Related to my previous state I once assumed to be lightning-fast I get >>-3secs (of former 17+1secs) load time of NS7 with all my plugins and >>-13+10secs (of former 27+10secs) load time of OOo.1.0 on a freshly >>booted machine. That is really nice! >> >>Now I'll see VMwares results/reliability... >>;-) >> >>Very-very impressing, so far, > So, VMware is stable with it, too, on my well known "heavy-private-test" of it (running Norton SpeedDisk at least twice within a most recent VMware Win98). It doesn't show greatly different timings than to my setup before though having a different disk i/o pattern (due to the missing aa patches)... and me having a reduced RAM from 512to256MB at the moment. And I should be honest to say I can't give exact timings as the important disk contents changed during last weeks. But the disk-access-times/related-to-the-content are definitively _not_ higher than before! > > Great to hear, thanks for trying things out. > > data=logging will be the slowest mode for everything except mail servers > and write heavy databases (or other apps that hammer on O_SYNC/fsync). > This is because all the data gets written twice, once to log and once to > the main disk. It helps synchronous writes by writing to the log in > quick sequential bursts, and then writing back to the main disk in > larger chunks. Yes, I assumed/learnt that from your very previous explanations. But I don't see the point "slowest", so far, on here. This is a home/single session ?non?-production system on here. 1 to 2 IDE disks, one processor... notebook, you'd remember this setup from my mails. > > data=ordered will usually be fastest for streaming appends to a file. > The rest of the time it will be the same or slightly slower than the > default (data=writeback). What would be my recommended mount option later then (mentionned in the manpages or on the webpage?!) Mmmh: I see I test that at the moment... > > To answer your other question, you can only select one data mode at a > time. Why is no combo possible? Meant as: Could/would that bring advantages in future?!! > > -chris > Thanks, Manuel