[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels Möller) writes: > > > Does anybody have any idea how often this case occurs with typical > > activities like compilation? > > What's the point of the question: to decide if we can ignore the > issue, or to decide if the solution has to be terribly efficient?
I'd like to know if implementing the new scheme would really help making the statement "The Hurd is significantly slower than Linux for things like big compiles" false. If it's an optimization that's worth the effort. As for "terribly efficient", I'm simply assuming that the cost will be that one sync of the intermediate state of A that is required for robustness, that the book-keeping is free, and that it's quite hard or complicated (say, introducing some filesystem transaction log) to improve on that. It seems relevant to ask if the typical file access patterns will generate mostly acyclical dependencies between blocks (in which case the new scheme is a big win, as no waiting for blocks to be synced is needed at all, if I understood it correctly). Or if the A, B, A pattern is typical, say it happens about ones every time a file is created or modified or something like that, in which case we would still a lot of syncing. Best regards, /Niels _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
