From: "Hua Zhong" <hzhong@gmail.com>
To: "'Theodore Tso'" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: "'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"'Jens Axboe'" <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
"'Linux Kernel Mailing List'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/8][RFC] IO latency/throughput fixes
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:35:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <003001c9b6ff$a9259ce0$fb70d6a0$@com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090406211931.GB8586@mit.edu>
> I've added workarounds for 2.6.30 that provide the replace-via-rename
> and replace-via-truncate workarounds for ext3 data=writeback cases.
> See commits e7c8f507 and f7ab34ea.
>
> There won't be an implied fsync for newly created files, yes, but you
> could have crashed 5 seconds earlier, at which point you would have
> lost the newly created file anyway. Replace-via-rename and
> replace-via-truncate solves the problem for applications which are
> editing pre-existing files, which was most of people's complaints
> about depending on data=ordered semantics.
I am not talking about "most" people's complaints. There are use cases for
ext3 far beyond the desktop.
I worked on a user-space library on top of ext3 before on embedded systems.
It may not have been the case for me but I could well imagine where it could
get too clever and depend upon "ordered". You really don't want to silently
corrupt people's data by changing the default. How about security too?
Wasn't that the original reason for "ordered" mode?
Ext3 is supposed to be a stable filesystem, while ext4 is the shiny new
filesystem that gets to do all the exciting experiments. I thought it was
the idea. People do not expect such a change at this stage, for better or
worse. It's great that you can improve its performance, but the performance
problem wasn't introduced yesterday, so if people care they could always
mount it as writeback, but there is no urgency in doing it for them. A
default semantic change is just crazy talk.
Hua
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-06 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-06 12:48 [PATCH 0/8][RFC] IO latency/throughput fixes Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 12:48 ` [PATCH 1/8] block: change the request allocation/congestion logic to be sync/async based Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 12:48 ` [PATCH 2/8] Add WRITE_SYNC_PLUG and SWRITE_SYNC_PLUG Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 12:48 ` [PATCH 3/8] block: fsync_buffers_list() should use SWRITE_SYNC_PLUG Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 12:48 ` [PATCH 4/8] jbd: use WRITE_SYNC_PLUG instead of WRITE_SYNC Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 12:48 ` [PATCH 5/8] jbd2: " Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 12:48 ` [PATCH 6/8] block: enabling plugging on SSD devices that don't do queuing Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 12:48 ` [PATCH 7/8] block: Add flag for telling the IO schedulers NOT to anticipate more IO Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 12:48 ` [PATCH 8/8] block: switch sync_dirty_buffer() over to WRITE_SYNC Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 13:04 ` [PATCH 0/8][RFC] IO latency/throughput fixes Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 13:13 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 15:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-06 16:57 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-07 3:28 ` Chris Mason
2009-04-06 15:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-06 15:10 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 15:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-06 17:01 ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-06 18:31 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-06 19:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-06 20:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-06 21:26 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-06 20:12 ` Hua Zhong
2009-04-06 20:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-06 21:19 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-06 21:35 ` Hua Zhong [this message]
2009-04-06 22:04 ` Ray Lee
2009-04-06 22:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-06 23:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-07 7:51 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-04-07 10:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-07 14:10 ` Diego Calleja
2009-04-08 12:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-08 12:56 ` Denys Vlasenko
2009-04-08 13:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-07 13:35 ` Mark Lord
2009-04-07 14:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-07 19:24 ` Mark Lord
2009-04-07 19:45 ` Jeff Garzik
2009-04-07 20:53 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-04-09 2:40 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-04-09 14:01 ` Ric Wheeler
2009-04-06 22:25 ` Hua Zhong
2009-04-06 22:48 ` Ray Lee
2009-04-06 22:52 ` Hua Zhong
2009-04-06 23:19 ` Alan Cox
2009-04-07 3:52 ` Chris Mason
2009-04-07 4:13 ` Trenton D. Adams
2009-04-07 4:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-07 4:48 ` Trenton D. Adams
2009-04-07 5:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-07 5:23 ` Hua Zhong
2009-04-07 6:27 ` Trenton D. Adams
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='003001c9b6ff$a9259ce0$fb70d6a0$@com' \
--to=hzhong@gmail.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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