Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:57:02 -0800 (PST) | From | Simon Kirby <> | Subject | Re: [ Mind testing experimental one-liner? ] |
| |
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Simon Kirby wrote: > > > Okay...I'm still seeing the problem on the mail server that I saw before, > > but the example I had with the floppy has been fixed, so it seems like > > there might be something more that we're missing. > > Most mail programs do an fsync() on mailboxes at various points in their > execution. Looking at fs/ext2/fsync.c, it uses get_hash_table
Everything on the machine has either got fsync()/sync() options disabled or is using an LD_PRELOAD wrapper so that it doesn't. Trust me, I even patched the kernel to report processes that call fsync()/sync() to track everything down...It should be only up the OS to flush buffers IMHO.
> extensively, which is probably leading to the needless waiting. Also, it > doesn't look like any readahead is done on the indirect blocks (everything > is syncronous, leading to lots of scattered disk io -- dragging the whole > system's performance down)... If you try replacing ext2_sync_file in > fs/ext2/file.c with file_fsync, is performance reasonable (I expect it > should be)?
Hmm...What would this do? Allow flushing to be done asynchronously? Is there anything that could be unsafe with this change?
Simon-
| Simon Kirby | Systems Administration | | mailto:sim@netnation.com | NetNation Communications | | http://www.netnation.com/ | Tech: (604) 684-6892 |
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |