From: Richard B. Gilbert on 23 Apr 2010 16:41 Colin B. wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Colin B. wrote: > > ... > >>> With journalling turned off, you will definitely want to do an fsck. >>> Breaking and rebooting will cause more problems, not fix them. It *may* >>> be able to hide filesystem corruption, so you're not as healthy as you >>> think. That's not a good thing. >>> >>> The "other guy" is an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Ignore him. >>> >>> Colin >> Is there some reason not to turn on journaling? >> >> Journaling can make things run slower. Basically it writes "I'm going >> to update block 24,736" to a file, does the update and, on successful >> completion, deletes the "I'm going to update. . . ." and is done. If >> the system crashes while doing the update it reboots and finds that it >> was in the process of doing an update, had not completed it, and applies >> the failed transaction. > > I noticed that the OP was not using logging, which is why I mentioned it. > > Years ago, when logging first became available, it could be very slow in > some circumstances, due (mostly) to bugs. I haven't seen that for ages > though. I'd say that if you're so close to the edge that you need the > performance gain from disabling logging, then you're too close to the > edge. I can't imagine anyone deliberately disabling logging anymore, unless > they're misguided (or using ZFS). > > Colin A great deal will depend on the read/write balance. If most operations are reads you probably will not notice any performance problems. If most operations are writes you will see some effect. Try logging for a while. It may be more trouble than it's worth. It may save you from having to fsck a file system two or three times a week. Trying it is the easiest way to find out if it's worth the effort.
|
Pages: 1 Prev: trable shooting Next: How to detect if solaris is running as a guest machine |