| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Snapshot in XFS |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:14:17 -0700 |
| Cc: | ORI IDAN <ori@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <44A9DD1C.6050705@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20060627135402.C91D22580B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060628065523.GA1045@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44A9DD1C.6050705@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:14:36PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Presumably then you'd wait about as long for the sync to return :) Except that it would force the write-out of dirty buffers immediately and not prevent new IO's from being submitted during this time. The idea is that (depending on access pattern) there would be less to write out when the actual freeze occurs. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Snapshot in XFS, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [LOCKDEP] xfs: possible recursive locking detected, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Snapshot in XFS, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | BUG with inode allocating, Nickolay |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |