similar to: 64 K write access grouped in a single disk access ?

Hi Stephen, "Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 05:35:45PM +0200, chacron1 wrote: > > > I redo some test with 2.4.14 ext3 and raw device . > > Please try the current ext3, from -ac or ext3 cvs, to make sure you're > not hitting something that's been fixed since 2.4.14. 2.4.14 is a > very old, and known buggy kernel. >

My application always needs to sync file data after writing. I don't want anything handing around in the kernel buffers. I am wondering what is the best method to accomplish this. 1. Do I use EXT2 and use fdatasync() or fsync()? 2. Do I use EXT2 and mount with the "sync" option? 3. Do I use EXT2 and use the O_DIRECT flag on open()? 4. Do I use EXT3 in full journaled mode,

IHAC using ZFS in production, and he''s opening up some files with the O_SYNC flag. This affects subsequent write()''s by providing synchronized I/O file integrity completion. That is, each write(2) will wait for both the file data and file status to be physically updated. Because of this, he''s seeing some delays on the file write()''s. This is verified with

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:29:24PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:07 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > > These ones? > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-August/msg00078.html > > No, we had a bug when copying image from glance caused sanlock timeouts > because of the unpredictable page cache flushes. > > We

Given that the default journaling mode of ext3 (i.e. ordered), does not guarantee write ordering after a crash, is this journaling mode safe enough to use for a database such as Oracle? If so, how are out of sync writes delt with? Kind regards, Herta Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

I don't think that XFS is a desktop filesystem at all. This is from XFS FAQ: qoute ------------ Q: Why do I see binary NULLS in some files after recovery when I unplugged the power? If it hurts don't do that! * NOTE: XFS 1.1 and kernels => 2.4.18 has the asynchronous delete path which means that you will see a lot less of these problems. If you still have not updated to the 1.1

hi, If I understand correctly, full journalling mode gives better performance for applications that do a lot of updates in O_SYNC. Could you please explain how this is possible? Doesn't full data journalling do twice as many writes as meta data journalling? han

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 02:14:22AM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:36 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:29:24PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:07 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > These ones? > > > >

An update to the ext3 filesystem for 2.4 kernels is available at http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ The diffs are against linux-2.4.7 and linux-2.4.6-ac5. The changelog is there. One rarely-occurring but oopsable bug was fixed and several quite significant performance enhancements have been made. These are in addition to the performance fixes which went into 0.9.3. Ted has put out a

Hi, Can anyone tell me the ext3/ext2/vfs FS specifications: max number of files: ? max number files a dir can have: ? max number sub-dirs in a dir: ? max file size: ? max filesystem size: ? Dongsheng Song

Hi Stephen, I use ext3 with kernel 2.4.14. I'm happy to have verified that nfs+ext3 in journal mode doesn't provide atomic write for the user point of view. My program writes sequential records of 64KB in a file through a nfs mount point. The blocks of data are initialized with a serie of integer: 1, 2, 3 ... I kill the nfsd daemons while two instance of the program are writing their 600

James R Grinter wrote:- > >On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 09:39:37AM +0100, Mac wrote: >> On one previous occasion, the whole thing seemed to grind to a virtual >> halt, and we suspected (but couldn't prove) that a locking battle over >> (something like) secrets.tdb was to blame. > >(I recognise that symptom, see below) > >> Something that stands out is a huge

Hi, I have an ext3 file system on top of LVM and i use journaled mode. I would like to make a snapshot of my filesystem while the application is running in order to backup on another physical storage. For that i have to create an LVM snapshot and then to mount it in read-only for copying the content. This is not possible as far as ext3 needs to do a log replay at mount time ( AFAIK). I would

MEMDISK included in the freshly released Syslinux v3.10 is unfortunately broken. v3.09 works properly. Scenario: Isolinux --> MEMDISK --> FDBOOT.IMG (FreeDOS 360KB diskette image). Then try to access drive B: , which normally is your first diskette drive with driveletter A:. However, in this case MEMDISK occupies A:, and real diskdrive becomes B: Bug: when accessing B:, you're asked

Hi, ext3-0.9.18 is now available for 2.4.19-pre8. Some of the fixes in this release are already in the 2.4.19-pre8, but there are some important new fixes in the patch and users are encouraged to upgrade. This release fixes all known outstanding bug reports. The full patch against linux-2.4.19-pre8, and a tarball of the individual fixes in this patch set, is now propagating to

I have a test cluster running HA-NFS that shares both ufs and zfs based file systems. However, the behavior that I am seeing is a little perplexing. The Setup: I have Sun Cluster 3.2 on a pair of SunBlade 1000''s connecting to two T3B partner groups through a QLogic switch. All four bricks of the T3B are configured as RAID-5 with a hot spare. One brick from each pair is mirrored with VxVM

Hi David, Thanks for your reply. > Hmm, so this "async" (sync=disabled?) ZFS tunable means that it > completely ignores O_SYNC and O_DIRECT and runs the entire workload in > RAM? I know nothing about ZFS, but that sounds like a mighty dangerous > setting for production deployments. Yes, you are correct - sync writes will flush to RAM, just like async, will stay in RAM for

Hello Everybody! I am currently setting up an Asterisk server for medium to high load (approximately 20-35 concurrent phone lines). Do you think the following specs will sufficiently satisfy this system? CPU: XeonQC3220 2.4GHZ 8M RAM: 2X2GB/800 Harddrive: 1X250GB I could add harddrives and partition them into /var and /log directories to help with diskdrive throughput. Thanks! Elliot

I have a 24 x 1TB system being used as an NFS file server. Seagate SAS disks connected via an LSI 9211-8i SAS controller, disk layout 2 x 11 disk RAIDZ2 + 2 spares. I am using 2 x DDR Drive X1s as the ZIL. When we write anything to it, the writes are always very bursty like this: ool 488K 20.0T 0 0 0 0 xpool 488K 20.0T 0 0 0 0 xpool

Commit-ID: 3fefc6a404a970a911417d0345618a7e9abfef70 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=3fefc6a404a970a911417d0345618a7e9abfef70 Author: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> AuthorDate: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 00:43:25 +0000 Committer: H. Peter Anvin <hpa at linux.intel.com> CommitDate: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:45:36 -0800 [klibc] MIPS: Update archfcntl.h