Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 08:56:32 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ordered writes and completion (was: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_shutdown.c) Message-ID: <199912081656.IAA37684@apollo.backplane.com> References: <19991207205800.62679@mojave.sitaranetworks.com> <199912081614.JAA00421@caspian.plutotech.com> <19991208113055.01750@mojave.sitaranetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:>> would be noticable, but the difference definitely exists.
:>
:> If the application is bound by write latency, it is not written
:> properly. Async I/O was developed for a reason.
:
:That's a definition. But it doesn't alter the fact that there are a
:lot of improperly written applications out there.
:
:Greg
Well, we are really talking about the kernel's ability to cache writes
here. Under normal circumstances that ability is "good". When saturating
the system with writes then there are definitely a number of tuning issues
(Alfred just found one a day or two ago with clustering), and at least
one operational issue (the contents of a buffer cannot be modified while
the buffer is in-transit) but none of these issues are related to
sequencing I/O.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912081656.IAA37684>