On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 11:33:50AM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> > I noticed that most of the other API-visible functions are "rrd_X", but
> > flush is "rrd_cmd_flush". Should we rename to "rrd_flush" to match the
> > others? The only problem I can see is potential confusion with
> > "rrdc_flush". Maybe we should rename both?
>
> well I think calling it rrd_flush would be nice since it is
> consistant with the rest of the rrd_* calls and that is a good
> thing.
It looks like that conflicts with this (internal) function in rrd_open:
/* flush all data pending to be written to FD. */
void rrd_flush(
rrd_file_t *rrd_file)
{ calls fdatasync() on it }
It looks like it's only referenced from rrd_hw.c.. is it really necessary
to enforce flush to disk at in the holt-winters processing? That might
explain why HW processing is so much more IO intensive?
--
kevin brintnall =~ /kbr...@rufus.net/
_______________________________________________
rrd-developers mailing list
rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch
https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
