Hy!
On 21-May-2001 Amos Gouaux wrote:
> nj> I think the file close should be equal to a sync. Am I right?
>
> not necessarily.
Ok, I'll fix it.
> nj> with 300'000 folders, and 4-5000 active users (daily). Cross your fingers
> ;)
>
> perhaps your users are the ones that should cross their
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 17:53:34 +0200 (CEST),
> Noll Janos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (nj) writes:
nj> So far, so good ;)
that's good.
nj> To think of it, maybe Berkeley DB could be used. It might even be better... if
nj> you can specify it the amount of cache memory to use.
just doing a qui
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 10:45:14 +0200 (CEST),
> Noll Janos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (nj) writes:
nj> You might be right, but fsync() might not be needed.
why gamble on something so crucial? this is inviting disaster.
nj> I think the file close should be equal to a sync. Am I right?
not
Hy!
You might be right, but fsync() might not be needed.
The program deals with the files as follows:
- At the start, mailbox.base and mailbox.ext are opened for reading,
then the program reads all the data, and closes the files.
- 99.9% of the time, the program serves everything from mem
I think this is really interesting work. I haven't looked at the
implementation but have considered this basic idea several times; I
think it's definitely worth the work.
A random comment on your message:
The mailbox.ext file is always "small", so writing to it should be
fast, and you co
