xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: NOW: o_direct -- WAS: Re: WARNING in xfs_lwr.c, xfs_write()
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:57:14 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87pr0hbg4g.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100523002023.41f5a5c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100523101856.GL2150@dastard> <20100523092344.0fcaab42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4BF9FCA8.8090906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100524143428.6f3a117c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100526070620.GT2150@dastard> <4BFD3926.6040208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100527114736.GA13112@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87pr0hbg4g.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:58:55PM +1000, Stewart Smith wrote:
> There is O_DIRECT type functionality available on Windows, with similar
> restrictions for aligned IO too. You have to use the Win32 APIs to do it
> though, the POSIX ones won't get you it (or more than 2048 files open at
> once).
> 
> In practice we've only ever found Solaris (other than linux) to be
> reliable with O_DIRECT (at least on UFS... ZFS is... well... I wouldn't
> run a database server on it yet).

Solaris doesn't support O_DIRECT either, it instead has a separate
directio call - just another pointless difference.

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