On Dec 4, 2007 7:40 PM, Tony Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Regardless, I wonder how much of an issue this really is. It seems to > > me that the code is quite optimized
How much of an issue the size of the writes, that is. > > [1] fsync is a slow operation, especially on a reiser4 file-system. > On a reiserfs or ext3 filesystem, it is (IIUC) less critical because of the > way the journalizing filesystem can "repair" when restarting after a failure. ReiserFS is Reiser3, the predecessor of Reiser4. I don't understand why you're saying what you're saying here. None of these filesystems can repair anything that isn't in the journal, so you're still not guaranteed anything. The journaling in Reiser3 and Ext3 can still mess up your files. Reiser4 will, however, guarantee consistent states (that is, your data will be there or it won't - it won't become corrupted). Reiser4 guarantees ACID, in database terms. Reducing calls to write is at least as critical for journaled file-systems as any. More calls means (possibly) more entries in the log, which will decrease performance and possibly increase chances of data loss. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
