Thanks, Andrew. Most webservers are, in fact, mostly read-only. But these are more of a complete hosting solution, so they are web/mail/pop/sql servers. I've run about 8 different benchmarking tests, 4 per ordered/journal modes, and journal wins out by far. The times for reads/writes in journal'd mode were nearly 1/4th of those in ordered. Also, I was testing with the elevator settings at read = 16384 and write = 8192 So, I'm going to push for data=journal if I am positive that the sync bug had been fixed. Any ideas on that? Thanks alot, Mark On Thursday 01 May 2003 12:16 am, Andrew Morton wrote: > Mark A Basil <mbasil@alabanza.com> wrote: > > Greetings all, > > > > I have a question regarding the fsync data corruption bug that was > > introduced in 2.4.20 when using data=journal. I have patched the 2.4.20 > > kernel with the 3 sync patches available from zip.com.au, and I am > > wondering if with these patches the "bug" still exists: > > > > sync_fs.patch > > sync_fs-fix.patch > > sync_fs-fix-2.patch > > > > In addition the following two patches have also been applied: > > > > ext3-use-after-free.patch > > ext3-scheduling-storm.patch > > That sounds right - it gets you up to 2.4.21-rc1's ext3. > > > Also, from what I understand 'data=journal' would be beneficial in cases > > where data is being written to and read from disks constantly. Would it > > be advised to use this data mode in a webserver environment in which > > there are many virtual hosts(provided the above bug was fixed with the > > patches)? > > Probably not. data=journal can help in certain specialised workloads where > there is a lot of O_SYNC/fsync activity. Mail servers, NFS servers, etc. > > > Would the above settings not crush the server? Those settings are > > flushing fs metadata about once per second, and data blocks every 600 > > seconds. > > Those settings were to address a specific problem wherein an NFS server > with synchronous exports would keep on filling the ext3 journal and forcing > lots of blocking writeout. > > I'd expect you'll be OK with default journalling mode and default bdflush > settings. web servers are almost read-only aren't they? > > You should seriously consider mounting with `noatime' - that will > significantly reduce the filesystem's writeout volume. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ext3-users@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
