| 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. Thanks, -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: oss.sgi.com - maintenance downtime Monday 14 Dec 2015 at 10:00 CT USA, Troy McCorkell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH V2] mkfs: get sector size from host fs d_miniosz when mkfs'ing file, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs, Georg Schönberger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs, Linda Walsh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |