Again, we don't need to sync indirects as we dirty them because
we run a commit if IS_SYNC(inode) prior to returning to the
caller of write(2).
Writing a 10 meg file in 0.1 meg chunks is sped up by, err,
a factor of fifty. That's a best case.
--- linux-2.4.18-pre8/fs/ext3/inode.c Tue Feb 5 00:33:05 2002
+++ linux-akpm/fs/ext3/inode.c Wed Feb 6 23:40:48 2002
@@ -581,8 +581,6 @@ static int ext3_alloc_branch(handle_t *h
parent = nr;
}
- if (IS_SYNC(inode))
- handle->h_sync = 1;
}
if (n == num)
return 0;
-
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 01:50:16PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Again, we don't need to sync indirects as we dirty them because
> we run a commit if IS_SYNC(inode) prior to returning to the
> caller of write(2).
>
> Writing a 10 meg file in 0.1 meg chunks is sped up by, err,
> a factor of fifty. That's a best case.
>
> --- linux-2.4.18-pre8/fs/ext3/inode.c Tue Feb 5 00:33:05 2002
> +++ linux-akpm/fs/ext3/inode.c Wed Feb 6 23:40:48 2002
> @@ -581,8 +581,6 @@ static int ext3_alloc_branch(handle_t *h
>
> parent = nr;
> }
> - if (IS_SYNC(inode))
> - handle->h_sync = 1;
> }
> if (n == num)
> return 0;
OK. This was just a relic of ages back when we had an overarching
transaction spanning multiple writepages in ext3_file_write(). In
that case, setting that transaction to be synchronous multiple times
was no extra cost. Doing it just once at the end should be fine.
Cheers,
Stephen
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Again, we don't need to sync indirects as we dirty them because
> we run a commit if IS_SYNC(inode) prior to returning to the
> caller of write(2).
Will this help synchronous NFS writes, at least a little? I have slow
write performance on "sync" NFSv3 exports (ext3 underneath, you guessed
it), kernel 2.4.19-pre3-ac4 (not really surprising, sync is slow ;-). Is
it worth a try?
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 14:07, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Again, we don't need to sync indirects as we dirty them because
> > we run a commit if IS_SYNC(inode) prior to returning to the
> > caller of write(2).
>
> Will this help synchronous NFS writes, at least a little? I have slow
> write performance on "sync" NFSv3 exports (ext3 underneath, you guessed
> it), kernel 2.4.19-pre3-ac4 (not really surprising, sync is slow ;-). Is
> it worth a try?
if you look at the source. that kernel doesn't need the patch. Seems to
have already been applied since ac1
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mar 27, 2002 20:07 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Again, we don't need to sync indirects as we dirty them because
> > we run a commit if IS_SYNC(inode) prior to returning to the
> > caller of write(2).
>
> Will this help synchronous NFS writes, at least a little? I have slow
> write performance on "sync" NFSv3 exports (ext3 underneath, you guessed
> it), kernel 2.4.19-pre3-ac4 (not really surprising, sync is slow ;-). Is
> it worth a try?
Are you mounting the ext3 filesystem with "data=journal" and have a
large journal? This will help a lot. You can also set up an external
journal device to speed things up.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert