Re: [gentoo-user] BIG reiserfs problem

[Daniel Iliev]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 October 2006 11:04, Uwe Thiem wrote:
>
>> On 31 October 2006 09:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> I find it useful to keep in mind that XFS is a file-system (i.e. a
>>> system for files), and not necessarily a severly disk-bound
>>> filesystem
>>>
>> Would you mind to elaborate on this? I simply do not get your point.
>>
>
> Historically SGI was very strong in graphics, and those applicatiosn
> tended to generate massive amounts of temporary files that had a short
> life and only the final version needs to be written to persistent
> storage, very well suited to aggressive caching and other similar
> speedups.
>
> SGI's engineers could get away with this because they could guarantee
> that power loss to the machine wouldn't happen, so the potential data
> loss on a power outage didn't happen either. This sounds a bit weird to
> those of us raised on Intel where we pay close attention to getting
> everything on disk ASAP with as little performance loss as possible,
> but it's a perfectly reasonable system for an engineer to implement on
> the kind of hardware SGI were building.
>
> That's why I say XFS is designed to not be tightly bound to the physical
> disk if the admin chooses to set it up that way, and the file system
> becomes more of a collection of directories and files that might never
> even be stored on a disk at all
>
> alan
>

"..we pay close attention to getting everything on disk ASAP with as little performance loss as possible.."

Then I would propose you to use "hdparm -W0 /dev/(what-ever)" to disable the write caching (no matter which FS you use). Nothing can give 100% guarantee against power failure.


-- 
Best regards,
Daniel


-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list