Re: Linux should better cope with power failure
Brian Gerst (bgerst@didntduck.org)
Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:59:29 -0500
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Brian Gerst wrote:
> [SNIPPED...]
>
> >
> > At the very least the disk should be consistent with memory. If the
> > dirty pages aren't written back to the disk (but not necessarily removed
> > from memory) after a reasonable idle period, then there is room for
> > improvement.
> >
>
> Hmmm. Now think about it a minute. You have a database operation
> with a few hundred files open, most of which will be deleted after
> a sort/merge completes. At the same time, you've got a few thousand
> directories with their ATIME being updated. Also, you have thousands
> of temporary files being created in /tmp during a compile that didn't
> use "-pipe".
>
> If you periodically write everything to disk, you don't have many
> CPU cycles available to do anything useful.
Note the key words "reasonable idle period". It was stated elsewhere
that this is the case already so it is a moot point.
--
Brian Gerst
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/