Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
KB is ok, MB is not.
It's typical in any data base work. In that case, rename() have no use.
Posted Oct 30, 2009 4:30 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
Databases traditionally use very large files because their implementors have chosen to re-implement filesystem functionality at the low level for performance reasons.
Most often they use their own journalling implementations and fsync(). This is of course legitimate. But using filesystem-level rename to provide atomicity would also be perfectly reasonable.
The size of the renamed and replaced file is an implementation detail only. Rename doesn't impose a requirement to copy large hunks of data only to throw it away. The unit of replacement might be a btree node, for example.
Nothing forces an implementor to use large files for any particular purpose.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds