On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 08:56:00PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 11:08:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > That being said, I've been running
> > my laptop and my production machines (except for the backup target)
> > for a couple of months now with it and haven't had any problems...
>
> Fine, this is typically the type of info I need. Thus I'll be using
> it with an eye on any potential FS-related problem.
Thanks.
> Are there any plans to use that option by default once it gets enough
> testing ? I'm asking because I had to convert from XFS to reseirfs at
> least twice due to slow metadata, but I tend to trust XFS a lot more
> (especially due to dirty failures I experienced a few years ago with
> reiserfs - corrupted file tails upon power cut).
>From Documentation/filesystems/xfs-delayed-logging-design.txt:
2.6.37 Remove experimental tag from mount option
=> should be roughly 6 months after initial merge
=> enough time to:
=> gain confidence and fix problems reported by early
adopters (a.k.a. guinea pigs)
=> address worst performance regressions and undesired
behaviours
=> start tuning/optimising code for parallelism
=> start tuning/optimising algorithms consuming
excessive CPU time
2.6.39 Switch default mount option to use delayed logging
=> should be roughly 12 months after initial merge
=> enough time to shake out remaining problems before next round of
enterprise distro kernel rebases
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
