linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sander Smeenk <ssmeenk@freshdot.net>
To: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Weird blocks at fsync() calls using md
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:38:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060728133811.GB2241@freshdot.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17609.65110.567036.457706@cse.unsw.edu.au>

Quoting Neil Brown (neilb@suse.de):

> > 13:28:07.011717 fsync(4)                = 0
> > 13:28:12.748252 open("js_gen.pl", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0770) = 3
> > 13:28:12.748427 write(3, "#!/usr/bin/perl -w\nuse strict;\nu"..., 2189) = 2189
> > 13:28:12.748506 fsync(3)                = 0
> > 13:28:13.006702 close(3)                = 0
> Yes, it's weird.  The sync of the .swp file takes a lot longer than
> the fsync of the actual file you are saving....

Yup. And it's always the fsync() on the .swp file too ;)

> I have this theory that there might be some odd interaction between md
> and the drive scheduler.

Well, i never really understood the big difference between the three
models. I used to do deadline on servers, but that turned out to be
REALLY bad (at least on our intranet server). Caused major load on
writes, made NFS b0rk, and when i switched it back to Anticipatory it
was all normal again, so that's what i used afterwards.

Using CFQ gives the same, maybe even worse results.
As does Deadline :S

Strange huh! Only this time the fsync() wasn't on the .swp file but on
the "real" file after writing it's contents...

Kind regards,
Sander.
-- 
| He broke into song because he couldn't find the key. 
| 1024D/08CEC94D - 34B3 3314 B146 E13C 70C8  9BDB D463 7E41 08CE C94D

      reply	other threads:[~2006-07-28 13:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-07-28 10:16 Weird blocks at fsync() calls using md Sander Smeenk
2006-07-28 11:11 ` Neil Brown
2006-07-28 11:47   ` Sander Smeenk
2006-07-28 12:08     ` Neil Brown
2006-07-28 13:38       ` Sander Smeenk [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20060728133811.GB2241@freshdot.net \
    --to=ssmeenk@freshdot.net \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).