| 1 |
If you are so concerned with the awesomeness of XFS's caching... why not |
| 2 |
turn on data-journaling? Then data (not just meta-data) is committed to |
| 3 |
the journal. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
You can also tune XFS to not wait so long to hold cached data. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 8 |
> On Saturday 28 October 2006 16:41, b.n. wrote: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> Dale ha scritto: |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>>> If you use XFS, make sure you have good power. XFS does not like |
| 13 |
>>> power failures at all. I have had to reinstall on a second rig |
| 14 |
>>> because of this very problem. If you have a UPS, that may be OK. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>> Thanks a lot for the advice. Power outages do happen and I don't have |
| 17 |
>> an UPS. Why does it happen? Isn't XFS journaled? |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Yes it is journaled but it also allows data to be very aggressively |
| 21 |
> cached. Make that VERY aggressively cached. With the result that data |
| 22 |
> can be held in a huge cache somewhere and the kernel can be convinced |
| 23 |
> it has been written to disk. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Consider XFS's pedigree - SGI wrote it for their graphics machines. |
| 26 |
> These were big monsters backed up with high grade UPSs and such - the |
| 27 |
> logic was that if you spend a brazillion bucks on hardware, a mega UPS |
| 28 |
> is part of the deal, along with the wages to pay the army of admins you |
| 29 |
> also need. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> And, when doing video rendering, it turns out that it's easier to simply |
| 32 |
> re-render a frame when the filesystems does something odd with the data |
| 33 |
> rather than go to the effort of writing an FS that is 100% reliable. So |
| 34 |
> SGI sacrificed something that doesn't actually matter for their use |
| 35 |
> case to gain a significant performace increase (which does matter a |
| 36 |
> great deal) |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> alan |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives