| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAC9RQtjMb9uarH9w59Fp+LJ=5s6cmRfgids5TGt4SJg25OMoYA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:45:54 +0200 From: Greg Young <gregoryyoung1@...il.com> To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Transaction File implementation question Been reading through tons of old threads about varying transaction file implementations. As many of the discussions are old (some over a decade) what is considered the best way of implementing today? It appears that o_direct is frowned upon, is the current preferred mechanism to use mmap and basically append pages + partial sync when writing (one issue with the second is that it doesn't work in say windows where as o_direct does)? We currently follow the added constraints mentioned by Linus in an old email (lost link) in that we use o_direct but prealloc and only use o_direct when reading. Is it worth looking at a mmap implementation? Thanks in advance, Greg -- Studying for the Turing test -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists