On 26.12.09 08:00, jim owens wrote: >> I was using "sync" to make sure that the data "should" be on the disks > > Good, but not good enough for many tests... info sync [...] > On Linux, sync is only guaranteed to schedule the dirty blocks for > writing; it can actually take a short time before all the blocks are > finally written.
Noted, many times already. That's why I wrote "should be" - but in this special scenario (filesystem speed tests) I don't care for file integrity: if I pull the plug after "sync" and some data didn't make it to the disks, I'll only look if the testscript got all the timestamps and move on to the next test. I'm not testing for "filesystem integrity after someone pulls the plug" here. And remember, I'm doing "sync" for all the filesystems tested, so the comparison still stands. Christian. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
