Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Tuesday 31 October 2006 11:04, Uwe Thiem wrote: > >> On 31 October 2006 09:17, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> >>> I find it useful to keep in mind that XFS is a file-system (i.e. a >>> system for files), and not necessarily a severly disk-bound >>> filesystem >>> >> Would you mind to elaborate on this? I simply do not get your point. >> > > Historically SGI was very strong in graphics, and those applicatiosn > tended to generate massive amounts of temporary files that had a short > life and only the final version needs to be written to persistent > storage, very well suited to aggressive caching and other similar > speedups. > > SGI's engineers could get away with this because they could guarantee > that power loss to the machine wouldn't happen, so the potential data > loss on a power outage didn't happen either. This sounds a bit weird to > those of us raised on Intel where we pay close attention to getting > everything on disk ASAP with as little performance loss as possible, > but it's a perfectly reasonable system for an engineer to implement on > the kind of hardware SGI were building. > > That's why I say XFS is designed to not be tightly bound to the physical > disk if the admin chooses to set it up that way, and the file system > becomes more of a collection of directories and files that might never > even be stored on a disk at all > > alan >
"..we pay close attention to getting everything on disk ASAP with as little performance loss as possible.." Then I would propose you to use "hdparm -W0 /dev/(what-ever)" to disable the write caching (no matter which FS you use). Nothing can give 100% guarantee against power failure. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
