Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.nfs:1899 comp.arch:21298 Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!appserv!slovax!lm From: lm@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs,comp.arch Subject: Re: disk queues of length zero..... Message-ID: <491@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 8 Mar 91 06:58:44 GMT References: <28975@cs.yale.edu> <1991Mar5.223443.21187@ns.uoregon.edu> <1991Mar6.003008.9131@bellcore.bellcore.com> <1991Mar7.115154.4820@hq.demos.su> Sender: news@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM Reply-To: lm@Eng.Sun.COM Followup-To: comp.protocols.nfs Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 9 In article <1991Mar7.115154.4820@hq.demos.su>, avg@hq.demos.su (Vadim Antonov) writes: |> I'm worrying why Unix does lack any mechanisms of disk idle time |> utilization? I think it's the solution of the problem - low-priority |> lazy updating of modifyed disk blocks. No need to sync. System 5 r 4 has this. We call it the incer-syncer (incremental sync). -- --- Larry McVoy, Sun Microsystems (415) 336-7627 ...!sun!lm or lm@sun.com