while you weren't looking, Kevin Brown wrote:
[reordering bursty reads]
> In other words, it's a corner case that I strongly suspect
> isn't typical in situations where SCSI has historically made a big
> difference.
[...]
> But I rather doubt that has to be a huge penalty, if any. When a
> process issues an fsync (or even a sync), the kernel doesn't *have* to
> drop everything it's doing and get to work on it immediately. It
> could easily gather a few more requests, bundle them up, and then
> issue them.
To make sure I'm following you here, are you or are you not suggesting
that the kernel could sit on -all- IO requests for some small handful
of ms before actually performing any IO to address what you "strongly
suspect" is a "corner case"?
/rls
--
:wq
