[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ext3 and data=journal bug



Actually, now that I think about it, the major constraint is the disk space 
needed for a >200MB journal.  Most servers do have the space, but this will 
be a network wide migration to ext3, and some servers are somewhat limited.

I'm now beginning to question the journal mode, which is disappointing due to 
the speed advantage it provides.  Would it be extremely unwise to run a 
journal of 50MB in data=journal?  Would it help to flush the buffer every 10 
seconds instead of the default of 30?  

-Mark

On Thursday 01 May 2003 03:22 am, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 08:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > mke2fs and tune2fs will support up to 102,400 blocks (400M normally).
> >
> > Try it.  Probably 400M will be best..
>
> It will depend on the amount of memory available.  The filesystem can
> pin about 1/4 of the journal in memory at any point in time.  Huge
> journals are usually inappropriate on machines with limited memory (but
> it sounds as if that's not a constraint here.)
>
> Cheers,
>  Stephen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ext3-users mailing list
> Ext3-users redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]