xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NOW: o_direct -- WAS: Re: WARNING in xfs_lwr.c, xfs_write()

To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: NOW: o_direct -- WAS: Re: WARNING in xfs_lwr.c, xfs_write()
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 07:47:37 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4BFD3926.6040208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100523002023.41f5a5c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100523101856.GL2150@dastard> <20100523092344.0fcaab42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BF9FCA8.8090906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100524143428.6f3a117c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100526070620.GT2150@dastard> <4BFD3926.6040208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
O_DIRECT is not a Posix standard and not very portable.  It originated
on IRIX, and Linux inherited it during the 2.4 kernel series days.
These days FreeBSD/NetBSD and AIX support it as well, but for example
Solaris, HP-UX and OpenBSD don't, nevermind Windows or Mac OS.

I have no idea why the MTAs don't want to use it - it's generally easier
to use then memory mapped I/O, and has much more deterministic
performance.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>