On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 at 13:30, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Latency for journal replay?
No, latency for the journaling itself.
You're the one who claimed that a 2G cap on just the *index* to the
journal would be an "artificial cap on performance" when I suggested
just limiting the amount of memory you use on the journaling.
Other filesystems happily limit the amount of dirty data because of
latency concerns. And yes, it shows in benchmarks, where the
difference between having huge amounts of data pending in memory and
actually writing it back in a timely manner can be a noticeable
performance penalty.
It's still a good idea.
Linus
