Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On 06/20/2012 11:51 AM, Phil Frost wrote: > Just to check my sanity further, I just did a test of a DRBD device > directly on a partition of a SATA drive. No LVM, no MD; just a plain > SATA drive and DRBD. I reached the same conclusion, DRBD is not > observing fsync(), O_SYNC, etc., and it's not for lack of support on > the underlying device. Can anyone reproduce? Interesting. I don't have time to test that right now, but now I'm curious at how this will turn out. I wonder if this is at all related to the problems we had with 8.4.1 causing read errors with the new read balancing settings when the OS cache is dropped. I guess it would be pretty embarrassing if DRBD wasn't honoring fsync under certain kernel combinations. For what it's worth, we have 8.3.10 on our existing cluster pending upgrade, and fsync times are definitely longer when both nodes are present. I wouldn't be surprised if something in kernel 3.2.0 causes a subtle break here. That said, most of the complaints on this mailing list tend to concentrate on how slow DRBD has made an existing setup. Now you come along and start claiming the opposite. :) -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-444-8534 sthomas at optionshouse.com ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email