Re: short term task list for Reiser4

[Clay Barnes <clay.barnes@gmail.com>]

On 16:11 Tue 11 Jul     , Hans Reiser wrote:
> Clay Barnes wrote:
> >On 15:04 Tue 11 Jul     , Hans Reiser wrote:
> >>6) optimize fsync --- substantive task which requires using fixed area
> >>for write twice logging, and using write twice logging for fsync'd
> >>data.  It might require creating mount options to choose whether to
> >>optimize for serialized sequential fsyncs vs. lazy fsyncs.
> >With the serialized sequential fsync, is that essentially what I was
> >talking about earlier with slowly streaming dirty writes to disk when
> >the HDD is idle?  If that's the case, I don't see the advantage in having
> >lazy fsyncs
> if you are optimizing throughput rather than latency, then you let
> things get to disk whenever they get there, and you let the app hang
> while it waits. A mailer processing many requests in parallel might find
> 30 seconds of latency to be just fine but a database might find 3
> seconds of latency to be too much. (I make up these examples, mailer
> programmers please correct me.)
I see your point, but here's where I'm still uncertain:

If you have a lazy write policy, what exactly is gained by intentionally
delaying writes (beyond a certain size that is necessary to make things
like dancing trees actually effecient)?  If you trickle some data to
disk, then when memory pressure causes (or an app calls) a big sync,
then you have less to actually write.  What I'm suggesting, now, is not
a major write policy change, but rather a light process that is limited
to extremely low resource use (I/O, CPU, etc.).  It would take some of
the edge off of major syncs, and for many (most?) non-server users, it
could wholly eliminate memory pressure-induced heavy syncs.

--Clay
-
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/