3 ms·
> Yes, single threaded, because the contention to the various files and the cost of serialisation would likely negate the benefits of using multiple threads. M
by biokoda 10y ago
> Yes, single threaded, because the contention to the various files and the cost of serialisation would likely negate the benefits of using multiple threads.
Multithreaded does not mean multiple files.
> But not using DirectI/O so writes end up in memory and only get flushed if it hits the commit count, or periodically - so, particularly for local disks, HDDs or SSDs, this in practice never blocks for more than a few ms when flushing, if at all.
Unless you are actually using it under a high throughput scenario which is why you would use a lib like this. It will work great until you hit the actual flush point, then possibly block for seconds even minutes.
If your performance needs are high, mandating XFS is not unreasonable.
- krenoten 10y agoIt's totally unreasonable to mandate a particular FS for modern general purpose software. Multiple files does mean multiple threads. Unless you manage to run this without a modern operating system.
- biokoda 10y ago> It's totally unreasonable to mandate a particular FS for modern general purpose software. That is completely debatable. We are talking about a "a high performance distributed log service". Not a word processor. > Multiple files does mean multiple threads. Which is something entirely different from what I said...
- the_duke 10y agoYou are making all kinds of assumptions without knowing anything about the implementation.