On Thursday 08 December 2005 10:50, Joel Palmius wrote: > Yup, makes a vast difference. XFS + not using synchronize is almost as > fast as using ubd as loopback on host. > > Says in help one shouldn't do this if one cares about the data in the UBD > though. Exactly how dangerous is it?
I _think_ that it means journaling is useless because we have no guarantees about what order data hits the disk in. (If your system loses power you'll have to fsck your UBD images.) What we really want are write barriers (which I don't believe Linux exposes to userspace but I'm not sure), and for UBD to propogate through actual fsync requests to the underlying OS. Ask Jeff or Blaisorblade. :) Rob -- Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list User-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user
