On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:25:13AM -0700, Joseph D. Wagner wrote: > > Please forgive me for the stupid question. Would Ryan's concerns be > addressed by configuring ext4 to run in data=journal mode? It would, but for most workloads, data=journal is much, much slower. Another option is to use the nodelalloc mount option. The nodelalloc option plus the default data=ordered mode will cause an implicit data integrity writeback of all files that were written at every commit. This is basically what ext3 did, but it makes fsync()'s painfully slow since *all* files are getting flushed out, which is what trained so many application programmers to think fsync() calls needed to be avoided at all costs. In addition, it decreases performance both for writes, and since without delalloc, block allocation tends not to be as good, for future read operations as well. We are keeping nodelalloc mode for now, basically so that when the ext4 code is used to mount filesystems explicitly marked as ext3 in /etc/fstab (via CONFIG_EXT4_USE_AS_EXT23) we are bug-for-bug compatible with ext3 at least with respect to delayed allocation and implied writeback on file system commits. > I realize that as a programmer he cannot guarantee that his application > will run on a file system in a particular configuration. I'm just > curious as to how this all fits together. Agreed, and in addition, this is not something we would want to recommend to users, since they come with significant downsides. - Ted -- 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
