while you weren't looking, Kevin Brown wrote:

[reordering bursty reads]

> In other words, it's a corner case that I strongly suspect
> isn't typical in situations where SCSI has historically made a big
> difference.


> But I rather doubt that has to be a huge penalty, if any.  When a
> process issues an fsync (or even a sync), the kernel doesn't *have* to
> drop everything it's doing and get to work on it immediately.  It
> could easily gather a few more requests, bundle them up, and then
> issue them.

To make sure I'm following you here, are you or are you not suggesting
that the kernel could sit on -all- IO requests for some small handful
of ms before actually performing any IO to address what you "strongly
suspect" is a "corner case"?



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to