[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:56:59 +0200, Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
>
>
>>Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns after all blocks are
>>on disk. While I'm not sure if and if yes, which, Linux file systems are
>>affected, but for portable appli
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:56:59 +0200, Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns after all blocks are
> on disk. While I'm not sure if and if yes, which, Linux file systems are
> affected, but for portable applications, be aware that sync() may r
Agreed, it would be better to sync to disk after multiple files
rather than serially; however, in the interest of not being concerned of a
power outage during the process, one of the reason the disk cache is
disabled, the choice was to fsync() each write.
-Original Message-
From
Toby Dickenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> write to file A
> write to file B
> write to file C
> sync
Be careful with this approach. Apart from syncing other processes' dirty
data, sync() does not make the same guarantees as fsync() does.
Barring write cache effects, fsync() only returns afte
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:32, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> >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
> >wit
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 12:20, Russell Coker wrote:
> 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 e
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:20:18 +0200, Russell Coker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 pe
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
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
Hello!
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:13:35PM +0400, Basil A. Evseenko wrote:
> clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122
This one failed because of disk quota exceed. Safe to ignore I assume.
> vs-13075: reiserfs_read_inode2: dead inode read from disk [3547658 9266355 0x0 SD].
>Thi
clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122
clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122
clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122
clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 2300597, error -122
clm-6004: convert tail failed inode 4563293, error -122
vs-13075: reiserfs
11 matches
Mail list logo