Re: POSIX file updates
От | James Mansion |
---|---|
Тема | Re: POSIX file updates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 47F14C79.2080806@mansionfamily.plus.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: POSIX file updates (Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Mark Mielke wrote: > Is there anything in POSIX that seems to suggest this? :-) (i.e. why > are you going under the assumption that the answer is yes - did you > read something?) > It was something somewhere on the Sun web site, relating to tuning Solaris filesystems. Or databases. Or ZFS. :-( Needless to say I can't find a search string that finds it now. I remember being surprised though, since I wasn't aware of it either. > I don't believe POSIX has any restriction such as you describe - or if > it does, and I don't know about it, then most UNIX file systems (if > not most file systems on any platform) are not POSIX compliant. That, I can believe. > > Linux itself, even without NCQ, might choose to reorder the writes. If > you use ext2, the pressure to push pages out is based upon last used > time rather than last write time. It can choose to push out pages at > any time, and it's only every 5 seconds or so the the system task > (bdflush?) tries to force out all dirty file system pages. NCQ > exaggerates the situation, but I believe the issue pre-exists NCQ or > the SCSI equivalent of years past. Indeed there do seem to be issues with Linux and fsync. Its one of things I'm trying to get a handle on as well - the relationship between fsync and flushes of controller and/or disk caches. > > The rest of your email relies on the premise that POSIX enforces such > a thing, or that systems are POSIX compliant. :-) > True. I'm hoping someone (Jignesh?) will be prompted to remember. It may have been something in a blog related to ZFS vs other filesystems, but so far I'm coming up empty in google. doesn't feel like something I imagined though. James
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: