>>>>> "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.
Attachment:
pgpduCk3Iu4E_.pgp
Description: PGP signature