Messages in this thread | | | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: imapd and synchronous writes | Date | Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:07:41 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
> > Modern EIDE drives with write-behind can also screw the > > O/S's sync write ordering. > The problem is not that of ordering, but of knowing when something has > been committed to non-volatile storage. If, in fact, the drives > inform the OS that they have committed a write before they in fact > have, you've got some pretty unreliable drives.
They certainly seem to do exactly that.
> > Not true. {int fd = open(".", O_RDONLY, 0); int rc = fsync(fd); close(fd)} > Since the namei() call could be a performance issue, systems which > need this should provide a feature-test for applications to key off > of. Some have suggested "__linux", but that's not a feature test. > It's a system test.
BSD, System 5 and Linux all cache "." so the open of the file overhead is so close to nil I doubt it matters.
Alan
| |