Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:38:42 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Cc: jonny@gaia.coppe.ufrj.br, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: int link(const int inode, const char *name2) Message-ID: <199606251838.LAA00282@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <m0uYQ4u-0001CkC@twwells.com> from "T. William Wells" at Jun 25, 96 00:50:15 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > sync;sync;sync > > That bit of ancient history is purely psychological. Since sync > isn't synchronous, after the command returns, your buffers aren't > all written. However, after you've typed the command twice again, > odds are they are. :-) Actually, 3 sync's is superstition. Two syncs was a trigger for a cache flush on a number of older UNIX and UNIX-like systems. The second sync would wait, since the kernel knew that there was a sync pending. One could argue on an old (but active) system, you'd type sync until it hung for a bit. Maybe the first one was preterbed by loading the sync code itself? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606251838.LAA00282>