Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:43:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:43:03 -0500 Received: from krusty.E-Technik.Uni-Dortmund.DE ([129.217.163.1]:2567 "HELO krusty.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:42:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 17:42:50 +0100 From: Matthias Andree To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.x has finally made it! Message-ID: <20011113174250.A15774@emma1.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011113171836.A14967@emma1.emma.line.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Doug McNaught wrote: > > Wow. That person is knowledgeable... NOT. Turning off fsync() for mail > > is just as good as piping it to /dev/null. See RFC-1123. > > Umm... He specifically stated that it was a Very Bad Idea for > production systems. He simply wanted to measure general throughput > rather than disk latency (which is a bottleneck with fsync() > enabled). > > It's a benchmark, lighten up! ;) Well, he wanted to benchmark everyday use, and disk latency is also an issue for everyday use, of course; so that's kind of pointless getting rid of I/O and benchmarking the cache. fsync() efficiency comes into play and wants to be benchmarked as well. How do you know if your fsync() syncs what's needed, the whole partition, the partition's meta data (softupdates!) or the world (all blocks)? - 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/