On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
much difference, and it may be the stick we need to beat Linus into
believing that this change is really quite important.
The change is really quite important and it will return to be important as
it was importnat in 2.2.x when raid5 will work
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
"Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Karl JH Millar wrote:
Furthermore, doing a write and then a fsync should be *just* as slow as a
synchronous write, but I'm measuring it as over 10 times faster.
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 10:57:15AM +0200, Benno Senoner wrote:
I tried all combinations using my hdtest.c which I posted yesterday.
I tried O_SYNC and even O_DSYNC on the SGI (Origin 2k),
(D_SYNC syncs only data blocks but not metadata blocks)
Not quite. O_DSYNC syncs metadata too.
I tried O_SYNC and even O_DSYNC on the SGI (Origin 2k),
(D_SYNC syncs only data blocks but not metadata blocks)
both only delivering 3.5MBytes/sec. (plain buffered writes were about
15-16MB/sec).
I should comment on this one since it would be on XFS
The difference between O_SYNC and
From: Benno Senoner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
write() + fsync()/fdatasync() on linux doesn't work well too since the kernel
isn't able to optimize disk writing by using the elevator algorithm.
You can try this in by trying to fsync()/fdatasync() all output descriptors
in the disk_thread routine.
