[lkml]   [1999]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [big performances boost for DataBases] Re: cache killer memory death test - 2.0 vs 2.2 vs arca - programs inside
Andrea Arcangeli <> writes:

> On 25 Apr 1999, Harvey J. Stein wrote:
> >
> >Given that I'm just building the file & exiting, if the kernel behaves
> >well, then I don't see any reason then to do any gdbm_sync calls at
> >all. Closing the dbase does an fsync & forces everything to disk
> >anyway. Why do you think the additional gdbm_sync calls are a good
> >idea?
> Closing the DB doesn't do a fsync. That's the whole point. If you do that
> you'll get data integrity on disk ASAP (instead you won't get better data
> integrity doing sync in the middle of the proggy if you write to disk
> after the sync, that's also one of the reason the current buffer.c is
> broken according to me). But if you need to run the dbase executables many
> times you can also drop the gdbm_sync before exit.

Yes it does - I checked the source code before making the claim:

From gdbm-1.7.3/gdbmclose.c:

gdbm_close (dbf)
gdbm_file_info *dbf;
register int index; /* For freeing the bucket cache. */

/* Make sure the database is all on disk. */
if (dbf->read_write == GDBM_WRITER)
fsync (dbf->desc);


Harvey J. Stein
BFM Financial Research

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.032 / U:32.344 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site