Re: Bug#605009: serious performance regression with ext4
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> Lots of users have complained about the desktop performance problem,
> but the reality is we can't really solve that without also taking away
> the magic that made (c) happen. Whether you solve it by using
> data=writeback and stick with ext3, or switch to ext4, or switch to
> XFS, or switch to btrfs --- all of these will solve the desktop
> performance problem, but they also leave you vulnerable to file loss
> in the case of system crashes and applications that don't use
> fsync()/fdatasync().
Are you saying you can't guarantee the atomic property without the
durable property? I don't think that's right.
I also don't understand why you can't solve the old contents issue
without negatively affecting performance.
> Hence the fact that all file system developers, whether they were
> btrfs developers or XFS developers or ext4 developers, made the joke
> at the file system developers summit two years ago, that what the
> application programmers really wanted was O_PONY, with the magic pixie
> dust. Unfortunately:
I think a lot would be happy with O_ATOMIC.
Olaf
Reply to: