The high order bit here is that
write();
write();
fsync();
can be executed using a single I/O latency (during the
fsync) whereas using O_*DSYNC, will require 2 I/O latency
(one for each write).
-r
Neil Perrin writes:
> As far as zfs performance is concerned,
For what it's worth, close-to-open consistency was added to Linux NFS in the
2.4.20 kernel (late 2002 timeframe). This might be the source of some of the
confusion.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@op
As far as zfs performance is concerned, O_DSYNC and O_SYNC are equivalent.
This is because, zfs saves all posix layer transactions (eg WRITE,
SETATTR, RENAME...) in the log. So both meta data and data is always
re-created if a replay is needed.
Anton B. Rang wrote On 10/12/06 15:42,:
fsync() sho
fsync() should theoretically be better because O_SYNC requires that each
write() include writing not only the data but also the inode and all indirect
blocks back to the disk.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs
