On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 22:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's interesting to note your email address and what it implies...
> I'm wondering if anyone out there may have some suggestions on how > to improve the performance of a system employing fsync(). I have to be able > to guaranty that every write to my fileserver is on disk when the client > has passed it to the server. Therefore, I have disabled write cache on the > disk and issue an fsync() per file. I'm running 2.4.19-pre7, reiserfs > 3.6.25, without additional patches. I have seen some discussions out here > about various other "speed-up" patches and am wondering if I need to add > these to 2.4.19-pre7? And what they are and where can I obtain said > patches? Also, I'm wondering if there is another solution to syncing the > data that is faster than fsync(). Testing, thusfar, has shown a large > disparity between running with and without sync.Another idea is to explore > another filesystem, but I'm not exactly excited by the other journaling > filesystems out there at this time. All ideas will be greatly appreciated. These issues have been discussed a few times, but not with any results as exciting as you might hope for. One which was mentioned was using fdatasync() instead of fsync(). One thing that has occurred to me (which has not been previously discussed as far as I recall) is the possibility for using sync() instead of fsync() if you can accumulate a number of files (and therefore replace many fsync()'s with one sync() ). -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.
