No, I don't believe that the phrase “based solely” would be a fair assessment. That there's a $1,024 bounty being awarded should be reason enough to suggest mo

No, I don't believe that the phrase “based solely” would be a fair assessment. That there's a $1,024 bounty being awarded should be reason enough to suggest more than “10 minutes” went into this. While the issue was first reported in a tweet, you should know that it came to us from an experienced database engineer who worked on both Google Spanner and FoundationDB. The initial triage was to compare O_DSYNC with F_FULLFSYNC on the same device, because the results should be within the same order of magnitude, relative to the same device—we already knew that APFS doesn't make the same distinction between O_SYNC vs O_DSYNC that Linux does. "Intel has already proposed MRAM -- aka persistent memory. If I am understanding correctly, your tests would claim that MRAM backed disks would fail your tests, they would perform way too fast." Again, I think you're missing that O_DSYNC was compared relative to the same device, with Darwin's custom F_FULLFSYNC as baseline. Finally, to assume good faith, you can also imagine that once we had the triage in hand, the issue would have been confirmed independently as “correct” by a third party in the best position to make that assessment.