Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> wrote: > Down to zero?
Depends on what the system is doing ! I've just checked several of my systems, one showed 12k when I logged in and dropped to 0. OK, that's a router so doesn't do much disk I/O - just a bit of logging. Another (my mail server amongst other things) showed 312k when I logged in, and while I've been watching it has been down to 16k and up to 920k. Oh, just before I hit send, I've just seen this one down to 0 as well. Even my MythTV server (which is currently recording and commflagging two programs) is varying between 1/2M and 9M dirty - oh, just dropped to 136k dirty. OK, this is a slightly special case because MythTV fsyncs the recording streams about once/second - but the commflagging and database updates that are done constantly aren't. So yes, observation confirms theory that if there is a period of no writes then the dirty pages will get written to disk. > Who "have to wait" ? Apps don't have to: they get the data from cache and > write to cache. Maybe the disk-write policy depends on the IO scheduler as > the read policy does, but this layer is completely isolated from the > applications. Actually, apps will wait if the underlying system just "doesn't return" from a read or write call for a while - a system I used to administer had one particular process (an inefficient reporting tool) we could run which resulted in 99% to 100% wait i/o system status (and simultaneously causing our phones to ring with user complaints as their processes effectively stopped dead). If you rely on new writes to "push out" old dirty data then there will come a time when the underlying system will make the application wait while it makes some cache space available - in effect, write performance will become near enough identical to having no cache at all. One of the points of combining a write cache with a process that flushes it out is to give some "ready and waiting" space for intermittent writes. That way, many loads will never have to wait for disk as writes will go straight into cache. > Data was lost and filesystems *were* corrupted, at every such crash until > the advent of journalled filesystems. I started to install Reiserfs many > years ago to face this problem with crash. Indeed, but the more dirty data, the higher the risk and effect. There's a difference between a few k/M and hundreds of M of lost data. You also have to consider the effect of optimisation techniques (either in the OS, disk driver, or drive itself) re-ordering writes to maximise performance. Back to the original subject, once upon a time it was simply a case of "wait till the light goes out and then eject the floppy" because the systems didn't have a write cache - I'm thinking of "desktop" systems like Mac OS, DOS, early Windows etc. Similarly, often the effects of a crash were minimal because updates were written straight to disk - I still know people who think nothing of pulling the plug to shut down a system simply because "we've always done it that way". _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
