Mark Wong wrote: > Ok, I finally got a couple of tests done against CVS from Aug 3, 2005. > I'm not sure if I'm showing anything insightful though. I've learned > that fdatasync and O_DSYNC are simply fsync and O_SYNC respectively on > Linux, which you guys may have already known. There appears to be a
Advertising
That is not what we thought for Linux, but many other OS's behave that way. > fair performance decrease in using open_sync. Just to double check, am > I correct in understanding only open_sync uses O_DIRECT? Right. > fdatasync > http://www.testing.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/38/ > 5462 notpm > > open_sync > http://www.testing.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/40/ > 4860 notpm Right now open_sync is our last choice, which seems to still be valid for Linux, at least. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
