Re: [Jfs-discussion] benchmark results

Christian Kujau
2009-12-26T19:06:38Z

On 26.12.09 08:00, jim owens wrote:
>> I was using "sync" to make sure that the data "should" be on the disks
>
> Good, but not good enough for many tests... info sync
[...]
> On Linux, sync is only guaranteed to schedule the dirty blocks for
> writing; it can actually take a short time before all the blocks are
> finally written.

Noted, many times already. That's why I wrote "should be" - but in this
special scenario (filesystem speed tests) I don't care for file
integrity: if I pull the plug after "sync" and some data didn't make it
to the disks, I'll only look if the testscript got all the timestamps
and move on to the next test. I'm not testing for "filesystem integrity
after someone pulls the plug" here. And remember, I'm doing "sync" for
all the filesystems tested, so the comparison still stands.

Christian.