> Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tuesday 11 August 2009, Chris Mason wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 03:35:36PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > >> > Somewhat unrelated, but what happened to the data=guarded patches > >> > Chris Mason proposed back in April? > >> > >> I missed 2.6.31 but plan on sending for 2.6.32. I promised to send > >> along a forward port of the patches a while back, but I finally have > >> one in testing here. It should go out shortly. > > > > Good to hear. I've so far stayed with data=ordered as I think I'd prefer > > data=guarded over data=writeback. I'll certainly give it a try when it's > > available. > > Same here. data=writeback already cost me a few files after crashes here :/ In this regard, data=guarded need not be better than data=writeback. We push out the data in guarded mode as late as in writeback mode (that's where the performance benefit comes from ;). The difference is that we increase i_size only after data are safely on disk so we cannot expose old data. So security-wise, guarded mode is as safe as ordered mode but in other aspects its more like data=writeback. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SuSE CR Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
