On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matthew Kirkwood <matthew@hairy.beasts.org> writes:
> > I had assumed that the overhead would come from synchronous
> > metadata incurring writes of at least the inode, block bitmap
> > and probably an indirect block for each syscall.
>
> No Unix that I've ever heard of forces metadata to disk after each
> "write" call; anyone who tried it would have abysmal performance.
> That's what fsync and the syncer daemon are for.
My understanding was that that's exactly what ffs' synchronous
metadata writes do.
Am I missing something here? Do they jsut schedule I/O, but
return without waiting for its completion?
Matthew.
