Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:39:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:39:20 -0500 Received: from pneumatic-tube.sgi.com ([204.94.214.22]:28251 "EHLO pneumatic-tube.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:39:13 -0500 Message-Id: <200103021839.f22Id1F32697@jen.americas.sgi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Jeremy Hansen cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: scsi vs ide performance on fsync's In-Reply-To: Message from Jeremy Hansen of "Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:42:48 EST." Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:39:01 -0600 From: Steve Lord Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > We're doing some mysql benchmarking. For some reason it seems that ide > drives are currently beating a scsi raid array and it seems to be related > to fsync's. Bonnie stats show the scsi array to blow away ide as > expected, but mysql tests still have the idea beating on plain insert > speeds. Can anyone explain how this is possible, or perhaps explain how > our testing may be flawed? > The fsync system call does this: down(&inode->i_sem); filemap_fdatasync(inode->i_mapping); err = file->f_op->fsync(file, dentry, 0); filemap_fdatawait(inode->i_mapping); up(&inode->i_sem); the f_op->fsync part of this calls file_fsync() which does: sync_buffers(dev, 1); So it looks like fsync is going to cost more for bigger devices. Given the O_SYNC changes Stephen Tweedie did, couldnt fsync look more like this: down(&inode->i_sem); filemap_fdatasync(ip->i_mapping); fsync_inode_buffers(ip); filemap_fdatawait(ip->i_mapping); up(&inode->i_sem); Steve Lord - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/