Nico Williams wrote:
On ZFS datasets with sync disabled fsync() functions as osync(), as a write barrier without durability and without the associated penalty. The obvious problem is that really do need osync() and fsync(); just one or the other is not a reasonable compromise.
Write barriers have been debated in Linux ad nauseum. I agree that osync() would be great to have, but it's still a die roll - the OS can flush blocks to the storage device in order, but without waiting for the storage device's buffer to empty, can't make any further ordering promises from there. You need device-level ordering support too. - which prompted my suggestion here
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg70047.html -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/ _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
