[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Slow delete

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, aelder@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Slow delete
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:04:28 +0200
In-reply-to: <1279565697.1855.136.camel@doink>
Organization: it-management http://it-management.at
References: <AANLkTinPmhJRD3CDdsHtkLFzYd2jF9ee7gPqgO6XBSfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201007121417.14097@xxxxxx> <1279565697.1855.136.camel@doink>
User-agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; )
On Montag, 19. Juli 2010 Alex Elder wrote:
> Assuming your single head is still in good enough shape
> to understand this, here's a high-level (though imprecise)
> explanation.
Thank you Alex for the summary, but that was the part I understood. I 
didn't understand the in-depth explanation later, where XFS internals 
were described. But I guess it's not something I must understand. The 
short summary is: XFS will be faster, but really shouldn't crash when 
using delayed logging.

It will be interesting to see what happens on a busy system during a 
crash. Deleted files will appear again, some file changes won't be 
committed, and again the big problem: some config files might be gone as 
the rename/recreate transaction will not be done safe via fsync, and 
people will cry. The plus in performance might be worth it.

Can someone guess the exact problems that can happen with delayed 
transaction on a crash?

mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31

****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ******

// Wir haben im Moment zwei Häuser zu verkaufen:
// http://zmi.at/langegg/
// http://zmi.at/haus2009/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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