Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Who said I removed fsync()s from Dan's code? Please read my
> closing and see if I've said that. You see, you're really
> taking words out of my mouth.
Just FYI, the correct expression is ``putting words into my mouth'',
and I didn't do that. You did notice the ``if'', I trust? All the rest
of my remarks were predicated on the conditional:
> > Be careful; _IF_ you mean that you've removed fsync()s from Dan's
> > code, then you have definitely thrown away reliability in order to
> > gain throughput.
I'm glad you solved your problem.
I am somewhat surprised, though: if you call fsync() twice in a row, I
would think that the second one would not do anything. The kernel
knows that the file has been flushed, and wouldn't bother to do it
again, would it? However, profiling doesn't lie--if you've seen
performance improve, then you've improved performance. :)
Len.
--
This is one of many serious bugs in the Solaris ucb libraries. Do not
use /usr/ucb/cc. One way to prevent mistakes is to move
/usr/ucbinclude to /usr/ucbinclude-broken.
-- Dan Bernstein
