On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:39:42AM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 08:07 -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > > > For jfs's sake, I don't really care if it ever uses nobh again. I > > originally started using it because I figured the movement was away from > > buffer heads and jfs seemed just as happy with the nobh functions (after > > a few bugs were flushed out). I don't think jfs really benefitted > > though. > > > > That said, I don't really know who cares about the nobh option in ext3. > > > > Actually IBM/LTC use the nobh option in ext3 on our internal kernel > development server, to control the consumption of large amount of low > memory space. Fair enough... but you mean to say that page reclaim does not control the consumption of low memory well enough? Ie. what is the exact benefit of using nobh? (I'm not trying to argue to remove it... yet... just interested) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
