[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:39:57 -0600
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <566E9B36.9080509@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E127700EFE58FD45BD6298EAC813FA42020D8173@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3496214.YTSKClH6pV@merkaba> <566E6524.6070401@xxxxxxxxxx> <3911767.qVqsL1TcMv@merkaba> <20151214095823.GA30662@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <566E978E.2070502@xxxxxxxxxx> <20151214102750.GA29192@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <566E9B36.9080509@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0

On 12/14/15 4:34 AM, Georg Schönberger wrote:
> On 2015-12-14 11:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:18:54AM +0000, Georg Sch?nberger wrote:
>>>> Or to phrase it
>>>> differently:  If nobarrier makes a difference skipping it is not safe.
>>> I do not fully understand that sentence, what do you mean by "makes a
>>> difference" and "skipping is not safe"?
>> The rule of thumb is: if nobarrier makes your workload run faster you
>> should not be using it, aka: don't use it.
> OK, thanks for clarification.
> Should the XFS FAQ be updated?
> *http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q._Should_barriers_be_enabled_with_storage_which_has_a_persistent_write_cache.3F

Yes, it should.  I've made some edits, hopefully it's up to date and clear now.


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