[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ext3 and data=journal bug


Actually no I havn't had much experience with larger journals.  I've basically 
only been testing for the past few days, and hadn't gotten that far yet.  

Would you say that for this type of application a journal size of about 200MB 
would be appropriate for partitions that are heavily written to?  Would this 
need to be greater than 200 in any case?  Currently we're only using dual 
18GB SCSI drives in most machines.

One of my other main concerns is quotas.  I hear ext3+quota = deadlocks in 
alot of cases.  Luckily I havn't seen any as of yet.  I'm hoping that I don't 
see any at all.  I'm assuming that using the data=journal mode is beneficial 
to quotas on a server as well.

Thanks again for your input.


On Thursday 01 May 2003 02:12 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Mark A Basil <mbasil alabanza com> wrote:
> > Thanks, Andrew.
> >
> > Most webservers are, in fact, mostly read-only.  But these are more of a
> > complete  hosting solution, so they are web/mail/pop/sql servers.  I've
> > run about 8 different benchmarking tests, 4 per ordered/journal modes,
> > and journal wins out by far.  The times for reads/writes in journal'd
> > mode were nearly 1/4th of those in ordered.
> Ah, OK.
> I assume you have experimented with large journals?  That seems to always
> be a win in that sort of situation.
> > Also, I was testing with the elevator settings at
> > read = 16384 and write =  8192
> >
> > So,  I'm going to push for data=journal if I am positive that the sync
> > bug had been fixed.  Any ideas on that?
> It's fixed.
> _______________________________________________
> Ext3-users mailing list
> Ext3-users redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]