Re: dvd+rw-tools update [6.0, DVD-R DL]
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bill Davidsen <email@example.com> wrote:
I played with this a bit, if you are using higher level calls you can
replace fopen() with an open() using O_DIRECT, an fdopen() after that,
and a setbuffer() to get a big alligned buffer in place. I did that just
to see if I could get a gain without doing a bunch of code which might
be non-portable in practice. The main benefit was to have less impact on
the rest of the system, the i/o in the program didn't run that much faster.
I was thinking that a simple wrapper to open() which adds
O_DIRECT might be sufficient, but it turned out that this
alone is not sufficient: the buffers used by the programs
must have a certain alignment. This is not guaranteed
without modifying the way how those programs allocate
O_DIRECT is no standard and it seems that it is just a reimplementation of the
very old DG/UX idea of O_DG_UNBUFFERED.
The idea of doing unbuffered i/o is hardly that young, I believe you
will trace it back to MULTICS and GECOS in the late 60's. IIRC that was
done when the buffer was alligned and size to allow it, not by explicit
user request. Having the user set a flag to request that behaviour came
later, and I'm unsure of the portability, since there is a POSIX call to
get the sized and aligned buffer allocated. At least for discussion
portability is not the issue regarding performance on a single o/s type.
It's hard to imagine how an i/o to a system buffer, followed by a copy
to a possibly misaligned user bufffer is going to be faster that i/o to
a user buffer which is sized and aligned to allow transfer of an integer
number of sectors. I hear what you say, but looking at the physics I
have to think the measurement is wrong or the direct i/o is slowed by
delays in the o/s.
Note that what you get with this feature is less than what you get from a
decent VM & buffer subsystem.
For a real compare you need to test Solaris vs. Linux on the same
hardware (I did not say or mean identical hardware, but SAME hardware),
and test O_DIRECT vs. normal system buffered.
When I added O_DG_UNBUFFERED support into star 11 years ago, it turned out that
DG/UX with O_DG_UNBUFFERED was still _much_ slower than reading from a standard
fd on Solaris.
That's also not terribly relevant to the performance in the same o/s and
hardware. I'm sure you're correct, but how does it apply to the topic?
There is no question that in Linux doing O_DIRECT will improve the
performance of programs using system buffers.
bill davidsen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979