>>>>> "cs" == Chuck Swiger <cswiger%mac.com@localhost> writes: cs> but fsync() isn't ignored on OSX. [...] cs> F_FULLFSYNC Does the same thing as fsync(2) then asks cs> the drive to flush all buffered data yeah well, whatever. This is what I was talking about: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00395.html which says that you have to use some special OS X only API to achieve an fsync that's functionally equivalent to what every other Unix normally gives you. I don't think it's fair to mention all the other detail without mentioning this well-known problem. and what every other Unix normally gives you is not really so thorough as one might like (may incl. I think NetBSD? does not propogate SYNC CACHE command all the way to the disk (ZFS does), or discards said disk commands in the software RAID layer (Linux LVM2), iSCSI correctness problems, u.s.w.), but is still more useful than what OS X gives without the special option. I'm sure their API circus made them look great in filebench or bonnie or fsstress or whatever benchmarks don't know about their special API, though. It's thoroughly bullshit, IMO.
Description: PGP signature