> Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Doesn't this also increase the likelihood that people will be > > running in a buffer-poor environment more frequently that I > > previously asserted, especially in very heavily I/O bound > > systems? Unless I'm mistaken, that opens the door for a > > general case of why an aio implementation should be looked into.
Neil Conway replies: > Well, at least for *this specific sitation*, it doesn't really change > anything -- since FreeBSD doesn't implement POSIX AIO as far as I > know, we can't use that as an alternative. I haven't tried it yet but there does seem to be an aio implementation that conforms to POSIX in FreeBSD 4.6.2. Its part of the kernel and can be found in: /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_aio.c > However, I'd suspect that the FreeBSD kernel allows for some way to > tune the behavior of the syncer. If that's the case, we could do some > research into what settings are more appropriate for FreeBSD, and > recommend those in the docs. I don't run FreeBSD, however -- would > someone like to volunteer to take a look at this? I didn't see anything obvious in the docs but I still believe there's some way to tune it. I'll let everyone know if I find some better settings. > BTW Curtis, did you happen to check whether this behavior has been > changed in FreeBSD 5.0? I haven't checked but I will. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster