From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 23 03:28:28 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860F1106564A for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:28:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-arch@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CE38FC16 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:28:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PgqUm-0004xc-Qu for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 04:20:04 +0100 Received: from 89-164-107-17.dsl.iskon.hr ([89.164.107.17]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 04:20:04 +0100 Received: from ivoras by 89-164-107-17.dsl.iskon.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 04:20:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 04:17:12 +0100 Lines: 11 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 89-164-107-17.dsl.iskon.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 Subject: UFS & serialization X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 03:28:28 -0000 I'm not an Oracle user but I've come across an interesting article about Oracle's interaction with Solaris UFS: http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/7146-Direct.html (as well as some nice DTrace examples). Could someone comment about how FreeBSD UFS fares compared to Solaris? AFAIK there is one-writer-multiple-readers semantics, and O_DIRECT in open(2) but it doesn't modify locking behaviour?