From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: early flushing of data Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:14:51 +0400 Message-ID: <3D57C2DB.8020204@namesys.com> References: <3D57BDA3.2010903@namesys.com> <20020812140529.GY282@hvs.envisage.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Hendrik Visage Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Hendrik Visage wrote: >On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 05:52:35PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >>I just thought that discussion of this might interest the list. >> >>It is interesting to consider whether one should flush dirty nodes to >>disk with only a small delay after they are modified, or keep them in >>cache for a longer time. >> >> >[snip] > > >>Your thoughts are welcome. >> >> > >Being in love with buttons-an-dials, I'd vote for a configurable flush >setting. > >I have the case were one email server (basically a hop in the queue) would do >well with the longer flushes as the data wouldn't be that long before it's >shipped out again (given no failure conditions), while I have others which >I'd like to have it to disk ASAP as it'll be taking awhile before it get's >moved along again. > >Thus a configurable setting (would love/prefer a per mount setting ie. >one for my log mount, and the other for the email mounts etc.) would >be nice. > > > > > Yes, but what should the default be (remember that 97% of users or more won't change the default)? -- Hans