xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: file corruption

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: file corruption
From: Steve Wray <stevew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 07:59:02 +1200
In-reply-to: <20040402015022.GA25936@dingdong.cryptoapps.com>
References: <406AF7B6.6030405@dniq-online.com> <406CC518.1090204@dniq-online.com> <20040402015022.GA25936@dingdong.cryptoapps.com>
Reply-to: stevew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.5
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:50, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 07:42:48PM -0600, Dmitry Nikiforov wrote:
> > So technically the whole purpose of this is to provide faster
> > startup time after crash and not the consistency of data, correct?
>
> yes
>
> some fs' will journal all data though (reiserfs and ext3 can do
> this), but it often comes at a significant performance penalty for no
> real gain (and sometimes causes other problems like seeing old/stale
> data)

This is why I use ext3 with data=journal on /var/log

I ran benchmarks comparing with data=writeback (supposed to be the 
fastest mode) and found that for the sort of writes that happen on 
/var/log you don't lose performance (and if one were writing enough 
data fast enough to /var/log to actually experience the performance 
hit, one would probably have worst problems than performance anyway).

The advantage is that in event of a kernel panic or other hard lockup, 
one can actually find some useful hints in the logs as to what went 
wrong, instead of 'garbage binary data'.

I wish XFS had an *option* to journal data...


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