On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 12:07:11PM +0200, Leon Kolchinsky wrote:
> My goal is to avoid filesystem corruption at any cost
doing what? applications can still lose data if they're not careful
> (while trying to use fastest FS for linux) and according to the FAQ
> disabling write cache is the right way to do it.
unless you applications are care, it's typical that reliability is
going to cost in terms of performance
> Power/Hardware failure may occur in-between the flushes (with write
> barrier enabled) so the safe way (I think) is to disable write
i've heard (but nobody has been able to give conrete details on this)
that disabling the write-cache on modern drives will lessen their
lifespan, often considerably
with write barriers sane applications should be just as safe as when
you disable the write cache
> It's interesting if there is a significant drop in the performance
> with disabled disk "write cache" and XFS filesystem comparing to
> ext3+enabled "write cache".
that's expected, w/o the write-cache drives are typically a lot slower
for many loads (why else would they put a write cache in disks afetr
> Has anyone some statistics or tests comparing ext3+enabled write
> cache vs. xfs+disabled write cache?
why would you compare those two? why ext3 w/ caches enabled and xfs
w/ caches disabled?
anyhow, it depends on your load, for some loads ext3 is faster and
others xfs is faster
what access patterns are you expecting?