Thank you for the quick reply. I wish you a happy new year. :) [Raphael Hertzog] > This is an option that we wish it did not exist.
OK. Still do not explain to me in what situation or use case it is useful drop fsync() for the package files while still using fsync() on /var/lib/dpkg/updates and /var/lib/dpkg/tmp.ci. I assume there is such usecase, given that the option is working the way it is. > The proper approach is to enhance your testing tools to use > "eatmydata" to really disable all fsync() and not only those of > dpkg. It is not really possible to do this without rewriting all of Debian to allow it. While adding a file to gain a similar effect is possible. I tried to get eatmydata to work, but there are just too many packages that would need to change for it to have the desired effect. > --force-unsafe-io has not been meant for those use case at all, it was > meant for some users to gain back some performance lost on supplementary > fsync() that have been added to dpkg. It was not meant to disable all > fsync() and in particular not those on the database. I would expect these users to also want the extra performance gained by dropping the left behind fsyncs()? Why should this use case want the remaining fsync()s in place? -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
