From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 04:41:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 04:41:43 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-040-043.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.40.43]:22999 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 04:41:43 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Neil Brown Subject: Re: Thoughts on using fs/jbd from drivers/md Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 10:41:22 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <15587.18828.934431.941516@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <20020516161749.D2410@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 16 May 2002 17:17, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > Most applications are not all that bound by write latency. But some are. Transaction processing applications, where each transaction has to be safely on disk before it can be acknowledged, care about write latency a lot, since it translates more or less directly into throughput. > They > typically care more about read latency and/or write throughput, and > any fancy games which try to minimise write latency at the expense of > correctness feel wrong to me. I doubt you'll have trouble convincing anyone that correctness is not negotiable. -- Daniel