Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-19 Thread Linda Walsh
Sorry for the multiple posts, am thinking about this problem in between working on other stuff... and stuff comes up. But bottom line -- I would look at the source of coreutils "dd" program and find out how they do direct I/O. I know they had to deal with alignment issues when the Linux kernel b

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-19 Thread Linda Walsh
In thinking about this some more, you probably want to limit your O_DIRECT to just opens on files -- not sockets. I think that might be the cause of the error I got. The other stuff may still apply, but may be OS dependent. It doesn't look like it is real easy to tell in the open routine where

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-18 Thread Dag Wieers
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Linda Walsh wrote: Hi dag, I really appreciate your working on this, but it is really annoying hard and tedious. _I_ am not certain about all the requirements of Direct I/O, I.e. would have to research (goog/kernel source...etc). It may be different on different platforms

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-18 Thread Linda Walsh
Hi dag, I really appreciate your working on this, but it is really annoying hard and tedious. _I_ am not certain about all the requirements of Direct I/O, I.e. would have to research (goog/kernel source...etc). It may be different on different platforms, I _vaguely_ remember 'talking'(email) wi

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-17 Thread Dag Wieers
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Linda Walsh wrote: I wondered about that as well -- could speed things up by 30% over going through the slow linux buffers. One thing that the 'dd' people found out though was that if you do direct I/O, memory and your I/O really do have to line up -- it may be that only 51

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-17 Thread Dag Wieers
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Linda Walsh wrote: Dag Wieers wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Brian K. White wrote: > On 2/14/2013 9:50 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: > > > Since a --direct-io feature was requested a few times the past decade > > with little response and the actual patch is quite trivial, I p

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-16 Thread Linda Walsh
Dag Wieers wrote: Hi, Since a --direct-io feature was requested a few times the past decade with little response and the actual patch is quite trivial, I patched both v3.0.9 and master branch and included the patches here. Sigh. It hasn't been done because it isn't tri

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-16 Thread Linda Walsh
Dag Wieers wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Brian K. White wrote: On 2/14/2013 9:50 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: Since a --direct-io feature was requested a few times the past decade with little response and the actual patch is quite trivial, I patched both v3.0.9 and master branch and included the

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-16 Thread Linda Walsh
I wondered about that as well -- could speed things up by 30% over going through the slow linux buffers. One thing that the 'dd' people found out though was that if you do direct I/O, memory and your I/O really do have to line up -- it may be that only 512 byte alignment is necessary (or 4096 on

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-15 Thread Brian K. White
On 2/14/2013 5:21 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Brian K. White wrote: On 2/14/2013 9:50 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: Since a --direct-io feature was requested a few times the past decade with little response and the actual patch is quite trivial, I patched both v3.0.9 and master bran

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-14 Thread Sandon Van Ness
On 02/14/2013 02:21 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Brian K. White wrote: On 2/14/2013 9:50 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: Since a --direct-io feature was requested a few times the past decade with little response and the actual patch is quite trivial, I patched both v3.0.9 and master b

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-14 Thread Dag Wieers
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Brian K. White wrote: On 2/14/2013 9:50 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: Since a --direct-io feature was requested a few times the past decade with little response and the actual patch is quite trivial, I patched both v3.0.9 and master branch and included the patches here. When

Re: Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-14 Thread Brian K. White
On 2/14/2013 9:50 AM, Dag Wieers wrote: Hi, Since a --direct-io feature was requested a few times the past decade with little response and the actual patch is quite trivial, I patched both v3.0.9 and master branch and included the patches here. If this functionality is acceptable I don't mind s

Direct I/O support (patches included)

2013-02-14 Thread Dag Wieers
Hi, Since a --direct-io feature was requested a few times the past decade with little response and the actual patch is quite trivial, I patched both v3.0.9 and master branch and included the patches here. If this functionality is acceptable I don't mind spending the additional effort to upda