Theodore Tso wrote:
> So Patch #2 wasn't quite what I talked about doing; patch #2 is adding
> SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE for each file immediately after writing the file.
> So it's the equivalent of:
>
> extract(a)
> sync_file_range(SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE)
> sync_file_range(SYNC_FI
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:46:11PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > BTW, if you had opened the file handle in subsequent passes using
> > O_RDONLY|O_NOATIME, the use of fdatasync() instead of fsync() might not
> > have been necessary. And as far as the
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Theodore Tso wrote:
> BTW, if you had opened the file handle in subsequent passes using
> O_RDONLY|O_NOATIME, the use of fdatasync() instead of fsync() might not
> have been necessary. And as far as the comments in patch #4 was
Hum, fsync()/fdatasync() require a fd opened fo
On Nov 29, 2010, at 1:48 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Results (on ext4) suggest that patches 1 and 4 matter and the rest are
> within noise. Timings are rough; sometimes replicates vary by as much
> as a second. Numbers are cold cache (i.e., after running sync and
> echo 3>.../drop_caches),
Hi Guillem,
Here are some rough patches implementing Ted's suggestions:
Ted Ts'o wrote:
> extract(a);
> sync_file_range(fd.a, 0, 0, SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE);
> extract(b.dpkg-new);
> sync_file_range(fd.b, 0, 0, SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE);
> extract(c.dpkg-new);
> sync_file_ra
5 matches
Mail list logo
