Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 20:36:30 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, terry@lambert.org Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jez@netcraft.co.uk Subject: Re: Hard Link Count too small! Message-ID: <199703110936.UAA06877@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >> I have some POSIX performance tests that do this several times. They >> >> take too long. They take much too long if the filesystem is not async >> >> mounted. >> > >> >They must not be very POSIX dependent, or they would fail from the >> >"shall mark for update"/"shall update" discrepancies introduced by >> >the async mount. An async mounted FS is not POSIX compliant. An >> >> Wrong. > >"SHALL BE UPDATED". > >Not "SHALL BE WRITTEN TO CACHE AND MAYBE UPDATED SOMETIME". Right. Updating consists of converting a mark (which is usually implemented as a single bit, e.g., IN_ACCESS in ufs) to a time. This has nothing to do with caching. POSIX does not specify storage in RAM, disks, paper tape or stone tablets - these are implementation details. The system may simply cease to be POSIX conformant when the system crashes or the storage fails. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703110936.UAA06877>