Russell Cattelan wrote:
> This isn't a matter of laziness or poor design it's a trade off.
> If you want the benefits of delayed allocation/write then there has to
> be a DELAY otherwise there would be much point,
> if you want better data integrity in the event of a crash
> then mount your filesystems O_SYNC and loose the performance.
There is no need for such a trade-off. It is not difficult to detect that the
harddisk isn't very busy and start writing out dirty data blocks then. This
doesn't cause a performance drop and greatly increases reliability.
It's certainly worth the effort to implement this. The tests done by Seth
show that this is a real, existing problem.
Don't look at this from the point of view of a person that knows what "delayed
allocation/write" means, look at it from the point of view of a user.
--
f y cn rd ths thn y cn hv grt jb n cmptr prgrmmng
/// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
((( Creator of Vim -- http://vim.sf.net -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
\\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
|