Greg Smith writes:
> James Mansion wrote:
>> When I looked at the internals of TokyoCabinet for example, the design
>> was flawed but
>> would be 'fairly robust' so long as mmap'd pages that were dirtied did
>> not get persisted
>> until msync, and were then persisted atomically.
> If TokyoCabi
Jesper Krogh wrote:
Can you point to some ZFS docs that tell that this is the case.. I'd
be surprised
if it doesnt copy away the old block and replaces it with the new one
in-place. The
other behaviour would quite quickly lead to a hugely fragmented
filesystem that
performs next to useless an
James Mansion wrote:
When I looked at the internals of TokyoCabinet for example, the design
was flawed but
would be 'fairly robust' so long as mmap'd pages that were dirtied did
not get persisted
until msync, and were then persisted atomically.
If TokyoCabinet presumes that's true and overwri
Kevin Grittner wrote:
On what do you base that assumption? I assume that we send a full
8K to the OS cache, and the file system writes disk sectors
according to its own algorithm. With either platters or BBU cache,
the data is persisted on fsync; why do you see a risk with one but
not the other
