From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Lutz Vieweg <lkv@isg.de>
Cc: Felipe Alfaro Solana <felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
adilger@clusterfs.com
Subject: Re: Is there a way to keep the 2.6 kjournald from writing to idle disks? (to allow spin-downs)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:43:01 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4014EF35.9090006@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4014E8E6.7050007@isg.de>
Lutz Vieweg wrote:
> Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 19:29, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
>>
>>> I run a server that usually doesn't have to do anything on the local
>>> filesystems,
>>> it just needs to answer some requests and perform some computations
>>> in RAM.
>>>
>>> So I use the "hdparm -S 123" parameter setting to keep the (IDE)
>>> system disk from
>>> spinning unneccessarily.
>>>
>>> Alas, since an upgrade to kernel 2.6 and ext3 filesystem, I cannot
>>> find a way to
>>> let the harddisk spin down - I found out that "kjournald" writes a
>>> few blocks every
>>> few seconds.
>>>
>>> As I wouldn't like to downgrade to ext2: Is there any way to keep
>>> the 2.6 kjournald
>>> from writing to idle disks?
>>>
>>> I cannot see a good reason why kjournald would write when there are
>>> no dirty buffers -
>>> but still it does.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you tried playing with the laptop-mode patch? It's already in the
>> -mm kernel tree from Andrew Morton. I've been playing with it a little
>> (just a few minutes) and seems keep the disks spun down for some time.
>
>
> This "laptop-mode" patch would make things far worse than they're now:
> Spinning
> up the disk about every 10min would reduce their lifetime
> significantly instead
> of extending it.
>
> It's not a laptop, but a server with an ordinary 3.5" harddisk I'm
> speaking about,
> my goal is not saving power, but spinning down a harddisk that does
> not need to
> spin up the whole day long.
>
> What I'm questioning is whether there's a need to write to idle disks
> at all -
> does anybody know why kjournald writes data even if there is nothing
> to commit at all?
Because you aren't using the noatime option?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-26 10:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-25 18:29 Is there a way to keep the 2.6 kjournald from writing to idle disks? (to allow spin-downs) Lutz Vieweg
2004-01-25 18:33 ` Andreas Dilger
2004-01-25 18:56 ` Matthias Andree
2004-01-25 19:26 ` Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-01-26 10:16 ` Lutz Vieweg
2004-01-26 10:43 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-01-26 10:43 ` Bart Samwel
2004-01-25 20:52 ` Micha Feigin
2004-01-27 0:21 ` bill davidsen
2004-01-27 15:16 ` Bart Samwel
2004-01-27 18:44 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-27 18:54 ` Bart Samwel
2004-01-28 13:30 ` Lutz Vieweg
2004-01-28 23:06 ` Micha Feigin
2004-01-29 12:51 ` Bart Samwel
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=4014EF35.9090006@cyberone.com.au \
--to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=adilger@clusterfs.com \
--cc=felipe_alfaro@linuxmail.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkv@isg.de \
/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