From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3cd3b8571c28b75f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-06 13:34:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!feed.cgocable.net!read1.cgocable.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F44BC65.4020203@noplace.com> <20030822005323.2ff66948.david@realityrift.com> <3F4828D9.8050700@attbi.com> <3F4EA616.30607@attbi.com> <3F512BD1.8010402@attbi.com> <3F52AA5F.8080607@attbi.com> Subject: Re: A Customer's Request For Open Source Software X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:34:22 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.150.168.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cogeco.ca X-Trace: read1.cgocable.net 1062880799 24.150.168.167 (Sat, 06 Sep 2003 16:39:59 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 16:39:59 EDT Organization: Cogeco Cable Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42213 Date: 2003-09-06T16:34:22-04:00 List-Id: http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:D1upWhxUuOLF@eisner.encompasserve.org... > In article , "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" writes: > > > Control is where it is at. With block devices you can only: > > > > 1) leave it up to the O/S when to flush out writes > > 2) call sync(2) and have all dirty blocks written out > > 3) call fsync(3) and have all of your own blocks related > > to the file descriptor written out. > > You seem to be presuming some Unix system. Not all operating systems > have those limitations. Duh, yes of course! Is there any other operating system? ;-) > >> Most operating systems will allow you to wait until the data are > >> even if you are using the file system, so there is no difference with > >> respect to the durability of data. > > > > With UNIX, a return from write(2) is only a promise that > > it will someday be written. No specific timeline is > > guaranteed (see above). I don't expect it is much different > > with win32 systems. > > It is certainly quite different with OpenVMS. Never heard of it ;-) -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG