Mailing Lists: Apple Mailing Lists
Image of Mac OS face in stamp
Re: bad fsync? (A.M.)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bad fsync? (A.M.)

I know this is a comparison of Apples and Oranges. I guess I was just looking for a reality check on this seemingly large difference in performance.

I know that it hurts performance but correctness is always
at odds with the desire for speed.

I suppose that boils down to the fact that it really does take a long time to get the data onto the platter.

That is correct.  However one does not always need to call
F_FULLFSYNC -- it should only be called for the critical
pieces of data that need it.  That is, most writes can just
be issued normally (no fsync even).  Only when you need to
write the header for your transaction to be complete would
you need to issue the F_FULLFSYNC fcntl.

So, in other words, we've gotten very used to the speed of the cached write, without really thinking too hard about the data safety issues.

That is a very good way to put it.  The unfortunate thing is
that most of the time it's ok.  It's only when it matters that
you'll find out that you can lose data.


_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
 >Re: bad fsync? (A.M.) (From: Dominic Giampaolo <email@hidden>)
 >Re: bad fsync? (A.M.) (From: James Berry <email@hidden>)
 >Re: bad fsync? (A.M.) (From: Kevin Van Vechten <email@hidden>)
 >Re: bad fsync? (A.M.) (From: James Berry <email@hidden>)

Visit the Apple Store online or at retail locations.

Contact Apple | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2011 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.