| To: | Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS performance issue solved |
| From: | Walt H <waltabbyh@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 15 May 2001 06:35:18 -0700 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105142345310.7573-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-XFS i686; en-US; rv:0.9+) Gecko/20010513 |
That's the way I've always looked at it. I've always thought the -W1
flag was redudant, as well as a bit dangerous. If you've already enabled
asynchrounous access, you have "lazy" writes from the kernel. The only
other thing I've got to add, is that the only time I've had FS
corruption problems using XFS is when I experimented with -W1 and had an
unclean shutdown. Not worth it in my opinion.
-Walt Austin Gonyou wrote: This is agreed, about the -W1 flag. Wouldn't asynchronous IO solve this though? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | gcc / kgcc / egcs, Mário Gamito |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Bad blocks handling?, Marten van Wezel |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS performance issue solved, Austin Gonyou |
| Next by Thread: | A typo in cmd/xfstest/015, Takayuki Sasaki |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |