lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: imapd and synchronous writes
Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net> writes:
> Not true. If you have any modern disk controller that re-orders writes
> from its internal cache then you potentially lose.

My impression was that other filesystems waited until the disk
controller reported back that it had committed the writes to
non-volatile storage before returning. It didn't matter how the
writes were ordered.

> There are file systems
> other than the Linux one that do async writes and will have the same
> properties.

Which ones?

> Add it to gnu autoconf

I would if I knew how. What is it that am I supposed to test for?

"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Well, now that you know, you can do it. An application which does an
> open() on the directory, followed by a fsync(), shouldn't break on a
> broad range of unix systems.

I need a "feature" test I can check for in order to enable this code
only on the systems that need it. I'm not particularly enthusiastic
about taking a performance hit on my primary platforms (Solaris, etc)
in order to pander to a fringe OS that decided to play fast and loose
with the filesystem semantics.

--
_.John G. Myers Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:36    [W:0.307 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site