Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:25:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:24:52 -0500 Received: from [212.17.18.2] ([212.17.18.2]:26635 "EHLO technoart.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:24:44 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Denis Perchine To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: fsync vs fdatasync on Linux Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:22:59 +0600 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01021818225902.00766@dyp.perchine.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, as fas as I can see from fdatasync man page, and from the latest kernel sources (2.4.1ac3, fs/buffer.c), they are equivalent. Using of fdatasync in database can gain significant gain on systems which supports it (on HP it gains up to 25% with pg_bench on PostgreSQL 7.1b5). Are there any plans to implement this correctly? And due to what problems it was not implemented yet? -- Sincerely Yours, Denis Perchine ---------------------------------- E-Mail: dyp@perchine.com HomePage: http://www.perchine.com/dyp/ FidoNet: 2:5000/120.5 ---------------------------------- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/