On the 29.12.2010 16:41, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Christian Stroetmann
<stroetmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
True, I don't understand why people say it will cause a performance
hit but then don't want to tell why.
We are talking about atomicity. And it is a simple fact in the field of
information processing/informatics/computer science that if someone wants to
give/have the guarantee of atomicity, then she/he has to do several
additional steps often by using an additional data structure. In the end
Additional steps compared to what? The temp file, fsync, rename case?
read the paragraphs as a whole
this all costs more time and/or space than doing it without atomicity. At
Of course. But this should not affect the non-atomic usage.
read the whole paragraphs again
this point there is no discussion anymore, because this is fully discussed
to the maximum in subjects like Efficient Algorithms, Special Problem Fields
of Operating System Design and Fundamentals of DBMS Design (eg. AtomicityCID
principle).
And such fundamental points are not (needed to be) discussed here.
Furthermore, due to the competence it is possible for FS gurus like Ted to
estimate that the additional steps have to be done by several functions of
an FS, which implies performance loss. And because elementary FS functions
are involved the performance loss could be and in the past have been
significant, though in nearly all cases I have seen the reason was a very
bad implementation. The only exception so far is the Reiser4 FS: All of its
file operations are atomic, but still to a little cost of performance in the
most cases and the need of a repacker in some few cases which show a
significant loss of performance.
So making all ops atomic can be done at a little performance hit, but
implementing one specific op costs a huge performance hit? That
doesn't make sense and seems to indicate those that say otherwise
aren't right.
No, not in all cases, as it was explained (read the seocnd paragraph again).
And also, Reiser4 FS does no standard journaling to achieve this, and in
this way had to change everything of the FS (read about the design
concepts of the different FSs).
And the advice to use a well-known DBMS is simply based on the knowledge
that it has all the needed functionality already implemented in a highly
performant way, and on the knowledge that such a solution is used oftenly
for comparable use cases due to the cost vs. benefit ratio.
To take a look at the Reiser4 FS could also help.
I don't think storing all my conf files, executables, libraries etc in
a DBMS is a good idea...
read the whole both threads started by you again
Olaf
Christian Stroetmann
--
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
