Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:27:59 -0700 | From | "Jeff V. Merkey" <> | Subject | Re: Linux Buffer Cache Does Not Support Mirroring |
| |
Gerard,
What the hell is this? I wasn't being mean or evil, just tying to explain. Grow thicker skin and be less sensitive. I think you owe me an apology.
Jeff
Gerard Roudier wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > > > Gerard, > > > > The Statement relates to increased parallelism on FS code paths (they > > don't have to block), and allows multiple I/O requests to be handled as > > a "bundle" rather than one at a time. The benefit is immediately > > obvious since less time is spent calling semaphore and sync code in the > > kernel (shorter code paths, less rendudant calling of sync code). There > > are also benefits for remirroring since disk reqests can now be > > coalesced into runs and ordered based on block number for elevator > > seeking. Understand now? > > I have reread your previous mail and I had rather to guess than to > understand what you meant. > > As you know, UNIX systems basically implement synchronous IO (wait for > completion), asynchronous IO (write and don't care) and deferred IO > (buffer cache). I have been very frustrated in the past when switching > from VMS to UNIX. I knew for 7 years working on VMS applications the > vertue of completion callbacks called ASTs on VMS and am currently > maintaining SCSI drivers that rely on hardware interrupts. > > As you can see I have nothing to understand now from you. I just will stop > considering your postings given your agressivity and your evil way to shit > on everything that is not what you used to working on in your > pre-free-software life. > > Bye, > Gérard.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |