Re: [PATCH] 2.4.x write barriers (updated for ext3)

From: Jeremy Higdon (jeremy@classic.engr.sgi.com)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 02:22:52 EST


On Mar 4, 8:57am, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > 2a) Are the filesystems asking for something impossible? Can drives
> > really write block N and N+1, making sure to commit N to media before
> > N+1 (including an abort on N+1 if N fails), but still keeping up a
> > nice seek free stream of writes?
>
> These are the "big" issues. There's not much point doing all the work to
> implement ordered tags, if the end result is going to be no gain in
> performance.

If a drive does reduced latency writes, then blocks can be written out
of order. Also, for a trivial case: with hardware RAIDs, when the
data for a single command is split across multiple drives, you can get
data blocks written out of order, no matter what you do.

I don't think a filesystem can make any assumptions about blocks within
a single command, though with ordered tags (assuming driver and device
support) and no write caching, it can make assumptions between commands.

jeremy
-
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 - 21:00:39 EST