| |||||||||||||
Featherstitch: Killing fsync() softlyFeatherstitch: Killing fsync() softlyPosted Oct 1, 2009 6:05 UTC (Thu) by njs (guest, #40338)Parent article: Featherstitch: Killing fsync() softly
Pedantic erratum: I believe you're missing a call to pg_engage(rename_pg) in the second part of your example.
Thanks for a great article. It leaves me wondering -- what are the chances we application programmers will ever get a chance to play with these toys for real? Care to speculate on the viability of a patchgroup-style API showing up in real world systems over the next, I dunno, 5 years?
(Log in to post comments)
Featherstitch: Killing fsync() softly Posted Oct 2, 2009 18:42 UTC (Fri) by vaurora (guest, #38407) [Link]
Yes, you are right! I will get LWN to fix that for me.
Featherstitch: Killing fsync() softly Posted Oct 26, 2009 8:23 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
if this with a ext2 filesystem layout is comparable to ext3 (which uses basicly the same layout) is there any chance of someone submitting this to the kernel?
if this avoids the ext3 fsync bug it would be a big win for many real-world systems, in spite of the added cpu and memory useage
|
|||||||||||||