Solving the ext3 latency problem
Posted Apr 17, 2009 14:03 UTC (Fri) by anton
In reply to: Solving the ext3 latency problem
Parent article: Solving the ext3 latency problem
A strict interpretation of data=ordered means committing
dirty data to disk before any meta data updates.
I'm not sure I agree, but anyway, if it behaves that way, that's fine
with me. I like my data not only on disk, but also internally
"data=writeback" is the no holds barred assume your
system is never going to crash [...] sort of preference.
But if I assume my system is never going to crash, why would I be
using fsync()? And why should a file system that works based on that assumption do anything when the
application calls fsync()?
Fortunately, there is a lot of room for reasonable, safer
relaxations between data=ordered and data=writeback.
I would actually prefer to see something stricter than data=ordered.
Something that gives me the guarantee that the state after a crash
corresponds to some logical state of the file system before the crash.
Until I get that, I'll just go for data=ordered and hope that the
Linux developers don't break it like they did with data=journal.
to post comments)