On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 09:18:04AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I'm coming to this late. It sounds like dpkg has changed its behaviour
> > several times recently. Please can you summarise dpkg's current and
> > proposed use of fsync() vs sync(), an
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I'm coming to this late. It sounds like dpkg has changed its behaviour
> several times recently. Please can you summarise dpkg's current and
> proposed use of fsync() vs sync(), and the reasons for this.
Jonathan made a good summary of the history. I s
Hi Ben,
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:31 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> and I don't suppose we could make that the default? Is there anything
>> else the dpkg developers can try to be portable and still not be
>> sacrificing performance?
>
> I'm coming to this late. It sounds l
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:31 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Dear kernel team,
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, I won't have the time to do new benchmarks on this.
> > >
> > > The only benchmarks we have have been made by Sven Joachim:
> > > http://bu
Hi!
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 19:31:00 +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > All this is with a standard squeeze kernel on an otherwise idle system.
> > It should be noted that with lots of other disk activity such as writing
> > to USB disks, t
Dear kernel team,
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:58:47AM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I won't have the time to do new benchmarks on this.
> >
> > The only benchmarks we have have been made by Sven Joachim:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=578635#20
> > (asyncsync is t
6 matches
Mail list logo
