On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I'm coming to this late. It sounds like dpkg has changed its behaviour
several times recently. Please can you summarise dpkg's current and
proposed use of fsync() vs sync(), and the reasons for this.
Jonathan made a good summary of the history. I
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 09:18:04AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I'm coming to this late. It sounds like dpkg has changed its behaviour
several times recently. Please can you summarise dpkg's current and
proposed use of fsync() vs sync(), and the
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:31 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
Dear kernel team,
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
I'm sorry, I won't have the time to do new benchmarks on this.
The only benchmarks we have have been made by Sven Joachim:
Hi Ben,
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:31 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
and I don't suppose we could make that the default? Is there anything
else the dpkg developers can try to be portable and still not be
sacrificing performance?
I'm coming to this late. It sounds like dpkg
Hi!
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:31:00 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
All this is with a standard squeeze kernel on an otherwise idle system.
It should be noted that with lots of other disk activity such as writing
to USB disks, the
Dear kernel team,
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
I'm sorry, I won't have the time to do new benchmarks on this.
The only benchmarks we have have been made by Sven Joachim:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=578635#20
(asyncsync is the switch
6 matches
Mail list logo
