> > I don't have dirsync handy at the moment, so I can't test, but
> > I have to ask: have you tried the simple (and IMHO devastating) benchmark
> > that I posted back on 2001-08-02 comparing Linux to Solaris file creation,
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99678208121947&w=2
> > i.e., copy a file tree (XFree86-4.1, 33027 files) with hard links.
> Nope, I prefer not to play disk hogging games on my Solaris boxen, both
> of which are in production :-)
I'm not asking you to do it on your Solaris boxen -- I couldn't give a
damn about slow, buggy Solaris I'm asking whether you have tested this
on ext2/ext3 with/without dirsync. The gentlemanly thing to do when asking
for a change to the kernel is to (honestly) assess its impact.
> So you prefer speed over safety. That's fine. But that's not sane for a
> kernel to do. Cheating benchmarks is what others may call it. I just
> call it sad.
Cheating benchmarks -- bah! Safety for *one* (naive) application class!
dirsync buys me no useful safety on my build host, all it will do is
slow down things like rpmbuild --rebuild.
This is all rather silly. An MTA requires configuration, so what is
the difficulty in using -o dirsync, or alternatively, and quite a bit
more simply, executing chattr +D on the spool directory. It's quite
simple: put dirsync in the kernel and tools, then add chattr +D to the
post-install scripts for your favorite package manager.
- Bill Rugolsky
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/