similar to: [PATCH] Btrfs: improve the performance fluctuating of the fsync

Hi all, Has anyone tested for FA in R? I need to seperate out the variance due to measurement error from variation between individuals (following Palmer & Strobeck 1986). Andy Higginson Animal Behaviour and Ecology Research Group School of Biology University of Nottingham NG7 2RD U.K. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain

R-devel now has some improved versions of read.table and write.table. For a million-row data frame containing one number, one factor with few levels and one logical column, a 56Mb object. generating it takes 4.5 secs. calling summary() on it takes 2.2 secs. writing it takes 8 secs and an additional 10Mb. saving it in .rda format takes 4 secs. reading it naively takes 28 secs and an

Does Fsync of a file on a ext3 fs mounted with "ordered" option(the default) result in flush the dirty data buffers in the fs that correspond to previous transactions. In other words, if I keep writing to file1 (lots of data), log something to file2, keep fsyncing file2 after every write - does this mean file1 data would be committed by fsyncs on file2. Please copy me on your replies

Hi, I have a question on fsync() and ext3's journaling modes. Assume that I call fsync(fd) on a file. If that file is in 'data=journal' mode, would the fsync() return once the data gets safely into the journal ? On the other hand, if that file is in 'data=writeback' mode, would the fsync() return only when the data gets safely into its actual location ? Any help is

If I want to make sure a file has really been deleted do I have to: 1. fsync the file 2. fsync the directory the file is in 3. both? Much thanks. -- Ben Escoto

I'm currently looking at the behaviour of various Linux filesystems as backends for the Cyrus IMAP server. Like many mail applications, Cyrus makes heavy use of the fsync() system call to ensure that data has hit stable storage before it acknowledges receipt of messages. At the moment fsync() appears to introduce lots of synchronous I/O as data is flushed all the way through to the filesystem

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:03:00 +0300, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/09/2010 05:56 PM, Ben Gamari wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:08:58 +0200, Andi Kleen<andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > > > >> Ben Gamari<bgamari.foss@gmail.com> writes: > >> ext4/XFS/JFS/btrfs should be better in this regard > >> > >> >

Author: perrin Repository: /hg/zfs-crypto/gate Revision: a593e64c4739242e2eb3a43ea296996000af0c2d Log message: 6413731 pathologically slower fsync on 32 bit systems Files: update: usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/sys/zil.h update: usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/zil.c

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1798 Daniel Black <daniel.subs at internode.on.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |daniel.subs at internode.on.ne | |t -- You are receiving

This check for a user transaction is a bogus: fsync() with an open user transaction is verboten. If the caller is the same process who started a user transaction, and this is a different file, we will deadlock. If it''s the same file, this check means we won''t deadlock, but the transaction will be prematurely closed out. Any user transaction ioctl users should be careful to

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1798 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2130 --- Comment #16 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Retarget to openssh-6.4 -- You are

This is by no means a complete fix for RHBZ#836710, because I haven't completely got to the bottom of this bug yet, but it is an improvement. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1798 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones at redhat.com --- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> --- I just came

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1798 Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #22 from Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> --- Close all resolved bugs after 7.3p1 release

Libvirt has a fixed 15 second timeout for qemu to exit. If qemu is writing to a slow USB key, it can hang (in D state) for much longer than this - many minutes usually. To work around this, fsync the output file before closing the libvirt connection so that qemu shouldn't have anything (much) to write. We have to do this in two places in the code since we can reopen the connection (if using

Libvirt has a fixed 15 second timeout for qemu to exit. If qemu is writing to a slow USB key, it can hang (in D state) for much longer than this - many minutes usually. To work around this, fsync the output file before closing the libvirt connection so that qemu shouldn't have anything (much) to write. We have to do this in a few places in the code. This is a hack - it would be better to

Hello, I followed these steps in http://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailLocation/LocalDisk # Default to no fsyncing mail_fsync = never protocol lda { # Enable fsyncing for LDA mail_fsync = optimized } protocol lmtp { # Enable fsyncing for LMTP mail_fsync = optimized } This gives quite a good performance, but I'm not sure about the risks. Does it mean that things like *put a Sent Mail to Sent

Hi list, is there a reason why nobody answers an my topics? Greetings Christian

Hi, Johannes: > So whatever you do, it's probably best to assume that the fsync() operation on > your dir fd is going to fail, and route around that (potential) failure as > best as you can. Thanks very much for this information. Is this documented? So that I can report this to my boss. I googled this for sort of time. Thanks again! Best Regards Cao 在 2018年02月02日 20:59,

This patch optimizes the tree logging stuff so it doesn''t always wait 1 jiffie for new people to join the logging transaction if there is only ever 1 writer. This helps a little bit with latency where we have something like RPM where it will fdatasync every file it writes, and so waiting the 1 jiffie for every fdatasync really starts to add up. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik