On 1.2.2011, at 5.11, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > This depends on how the dev does his syncs. If done intelligently, XFS > performance won't suffer. In fact, the preferred write method to XFS for high > performance applications is using O_DIRECT. Using O_DIRECT, correctly, with > XFS, actually _increases_ write performance versus going through the buffer > cache. So you get the best of both worlds: higher performance and data > guaranteed on disk.
O_DIRECT is completely useless for just about every application there is. It was written for Oracle, and I doubt there are many applications outside (SQL) databases that use it at all. > Read Ted's article I linked. I didn't misquote him. The simple point he was > making is that unless devs specifically use fsync or other calls to guarantee > their data is on disk, they will suffer data loss with any modern journaling > filesystem when the power goes out or the system crashes. You seem to be > assuming all devs use fsync. Apparently this is far from reality. Ted also thinks everyone should be using SQL(ite) database rather than filesystems directly. Many people don't agree.
