xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?
From: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx (DS)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:09:04 +0200
In-reply-to: <200806181049.07812.dchinner@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <4859415B.3000009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200806181049.07812.dchinner@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Hmm, but file overwrite in perl/php is slow, very slow.

Which FS is best for me?
XFS - perl/php overwrite problem
EXT3 - 32000 subdirs limit
REISER - no future
JFS - ?

DS

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 June 2008 10:09 am, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > After Lachlan's fix to separate on-disk and in-memory sizes, and only
> > update on-disk when data is on-disk
> > (http://www.linux.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00020.html) is the
> > XFS_ITRUNCATED flag / flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?
> 
> Yes, because waiting 30s before writing back /etc/fstab after it
> has been modified will result in lots of bug reports of /etc/fstab
> being zero length after a crash instead of being full of NULLs.
> We have had very few reports of zero length files or files with
> NULLs since this change was made (regardless of the file size 
> update ordering changes). i.e. if we remove this code then the
> common case where NULL files occurred will return - only this
> time as zero length files.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>