> I agree about the usefulness of fbarrier() vs. fsync(), BTW. The cool > thing is that on ZFS, fbarrier() is a no-op. It's implicit after > every system call.
That is interesting. Could this account for disproportionate kernel CPU usage for applications that perform I/O one byte at a time, as compared to other filesystems? (Nevermind that the application shouldn't do that to begin with.) But the fact that you effectively have an fbarrier() is extremely nice. Guess that is yet another reason to prefer ZFS for certrain (granted, very specific) cases. I still would love to see something like fbarrier() defined by some standrd (de facto or otherwise) to make the distinction between ordered writes and guaranteed persistence more easily exploited in the general case for applications, and encourage filesystems/storage systems to optimize for that case (i.e., not have fbarrier() simply fsync()). -- / Peter Schuller PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
