while you weren't looking, Kevin Brown wrote: [reordering bursty reads]
> In other words, it's a corner case that I strongly suspect > isn't typical in situations where SCSI has historically made a big > difference. [...] > But I rather doubt that has to be a huge penalty, if any. When a > process issues an fsync (or even a sync), the kernel doesn't *have* to > drop everything it's doing and get to work on it immediately. It > could easily gather a few more requests, bundle them up, and then > issue them. To make sure I'm following you here, are you or are you not suggesting that the kernel could sit on -all- IO requests for some small handful of ms before actually performing any IO to address what you "strongly suspect" is a "corner case"? /rls -- :wq ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
