sct@redhat.com said:
> Generally, that may be true but it's irrelevant. Internally, the fs
> may keep transactions as independent, but as soon as IO is scheduled,
> those transactions become serialised. Given that pure sequential IO
> is so much more efficient than random IO, we usually expect
> performance to be improved, not degraded, by such serialisation.
This is the part I'm struggling with. Even without error handling and certain
other changes that would have to be made to give guaranteed integrity to the
tag ordering, Chris' patch is a very reasonable experimental model of how an
optimal system for implementing write barriers via ordered tags would work;
yet when he benchmarks, he sees a performance decrease.
I can dismiss his results as being due to firmware problems with his drives
making them behave non-optimally for ordered tags, but I really would like to
see evidence that someone somewhere acutally sees a performance boost with
Chris' patch.
Have there been any published comparisons of a write barrier implementation
verses something like the McKusick soft update idea, or even just
multi-threaded back end completion of the transactions?
James
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:34 EST