[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: direct (unbufferd) disk access
> On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Matthew Jacob
> <> said:
> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:06:53 -0400, Douglas Gilbert
> >> Given that we have clocked reasonably standard i386 hardware with fast
> >> disks at 50 or 60 MB/sec through the filesystem, I doubt that the
> >> indirect IO is the bottleneck in those cases.
> > Without cache pollution?
> Page cache pollution is a totally different issue. At 60MB/sec
> we aren't even close to the performance levels where memory bandwidth
> is an issue, so extra copies into the cache are irrelevant from a
> bandwidth point of view. Of _course_ raw IO has less impact on
> memory, but that's another point entirely.

What I mean was: raw I/O is an application policy statement that says
"leaving this data in the buffer cache is not what I want". You certainly
do have some overhead in throwing stuff away if it's sitting in the buffer

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 13:52    [W:0.029 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site