[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> After delving into this a little, it seems to me that if you are going to
> do this:
> write(file, buffer, size);
> f[data]sync(file);
> Opening with O_SYNC seems to be an optimization specifically to this
> methodology.
What you are missing is that we don't necessari
> On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 07:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Some more information:
>>
>> I started to perform the tests on one of the machines in my lab, and
>> guess
>> what, almost no difference between fsync and open_sync. Either on jfs or
>> ext2.
>>
>> The difference, Linux 2.6.3? My original t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does it make sense, then, to say that WAL O_SYNC should be O_SYNC? If
> there are no reasons not too, doesn't it make sense to make this the
> default. It will give a boost for any 2.4 Linux machines and won't seem to
> hurt anyone else.
You have got the terms of debate
>
> In particular, you need to offer some evidence for that completely
> undocumented assertion that "it won't hurt anyone else".
It should be easy enough to prove whether or not O_SYNC hurts anyone.
OK, let me ask a few questions:
(1) what is a good sample set on which to run? Linux, FreeBSD,
Some more information:
I started to perform the tests on one of the machines in my lab, and guess
what, almost no difference between fsync and open_sync. Either on jfs or
ext2.
The difference, Linux 2.6.3? My original tests where on Linux 2.4.25.
The good part is that open_sync wasn't worse.
Ju
