xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs on notebooks (noflushd etc.)

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs on notebooks (noflushd etc.)
From: Juri Haberland <list-linux.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
Distribution: local
Organization: spoiled dot org
References: <news2mail-20010715165102.42C97E94.NOFFLE@tecklenburg2.spm.de> <news2mail-9iv2vc$nfo$1@babel.spoiled.org> <3B539DA3.C773F59@uow.edu.au>
Reply-to: Juri Haberland <juri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (OpenBSD/2.9 (i386))
Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Juri Haberland wrote:
>> 
>> thomas graichen <list-linux.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > just out of curiousity: how does xfs interact with things like
>> > noflushd which reduce the disk flushing for more effective ide
>> > poweroff possibilities ... is the flushing below the fs layer
>> > so that it should all work transparently or may it result in
>> > problems with xfs (or journaling fs in general)?
>> 
>> Hi Thomas,
>> 
>> well, I cannot speak for xfs but with ext3 the disk will only spin
>> down once; after this it will be constantly restarted by the update
>> mechanisms of ext3 (commit interval is 5 seconds).
> 
> ext3's commit only runs if there is dirty data to be committed.

Well, on an idle machine I can see disk access every five seconds. This
does not happen with ext2.

> Running ext3 with a kupdate interval of 15 minutes lets the disks
> spin down nicely.

Is that safe? Anyway, I will give it a try.

Juri

-- 
Juri Haberland  <juri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 


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