xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Slow delete

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Slow delete
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:09:05 -0500
In-reply-to: <201007201304.28490@xxxxxx>
References: <AANLkTinPmhJRD3CDdsHtkLFzYd2jF9ee7gPqgO6XBSfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201007121417.14097@xxxxxx> <1279565697.1855.136.camel@doink> <201007201304.28490@xxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5
Michael Monnerie put forth on 7/20/2010 6:04 AM:

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

The only real crash scenario difference, as I understand it, is that with
delayed logging enabled you'll potentially lose more data due to crash as more
is held memory resident with delayed logging enabled.  The characteristics of
the data loss are the same with and without this enabled, it's just
potentially more severe with delayed logging enabled.

If your systems are prone to power loss, hardware failures, or kernel panics,
I'd not enable delayed logging.  If your systems are rock solid, and you can
benefit from the minor decrease in file fragmentation and the increase in mass
file delete speed, then enable it.

-- 
Stan

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