Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F14404945 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.550, BAYES_20=-0.74] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E036MIUEHV+L for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com (mail-fx0-f218.google.com [209.85.220.218]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FF7404942 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so171983fxm.30 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:subject :to:cc:in-reply-to:references; bh=+oIgEgTW6qxGw7wljeqm6L2LJ1d15JLmwjJSmtQsXiA=; b=I2hcQsB4+TVlyIdcJtTgojUb01hqwrM3fH3vSzL4X1s/CsKNUixy5qp6/5HveyC7Wx Kz/U2+NuF2Z45+P7XRz4r8zoOvoSTukLqZyqHMnbFXanvobOdEXGFr8/nqKoVCFjpPNq mAG7Uw/bqqH2M+3L8RJ+h41P3GfpSrZ0oK33w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:subject:to:cc:in-reply-to:references; b=Humf1dgbgv+cvw6JninZoGKIQ/y++KnQDVQh4rS9gKxggAuli0RXA9oEbmG4uVQfbB QPw5Qa410+x/cAL4eRAKMZl/ygnr4r54PbcJC2LXjO5sQhOIvCZH6HmaznWsjeAq7UEH XvtH4iTAnO+Fch9/eGlq73iv8T94IOLTfWTrY= Received: by 10.87.20.13 with SMTP id x13mr8087367fgi.67.1268760165425; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (pool-96-236-115-3.spfdma.east.verizon.net [96.236.115.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d13sm9002086fka.2.2010.03.16.10.22.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4b9fbe65.0d375e0a.50db.4a8e@mx.google.com> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Ben Gamari To: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" , Olly Betts , martin f krafft In-Reply-To: <87mxy8chvq.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <4b9dccc0.c6c1f10a.3671.44ec@mx.google.com> <20100315090401.GA29891@glaive.weftsoar.net> <4b9e6e80.09b6660a.6769.6832@mx.google.com> <20100316110846.GK10323@survex.com> <4b9fa5d2.0a4d5e0a.0c0b.ffffdcbb@mx.google.com> <87mxy8chvq.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [notmuch] Notmuch performance (literally, in my case) X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:22:49 -0000 On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:40:17 +0530, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" wrote: > Ext3 fsync related issue is a know problem due to the way journalling is > handled in ext3. The solution for that would be data=writeback ( with > its loss of data integrity ) or not yet upstreamed data=guarded. Another > option would be to try ext4 which should not be impacted that badly by > the data=ordered journalled mode > This problem occurred for me not only with ext4 but also btrfs. - Ben