On Dec 3, 2004, at 5:17 AM, Ph. Marek wrote:
> On Friday 03 December 2004 10:43, Simon Large wrote:
>> Ph. Marek wrote:
>>> 1) There's some documentation on microsoft (which I couldn't find
>>> ATM)
>>> regarding the granularity with which timestamps are updated on disk.
>>> I remember that being about 30 seconds or such like for FAT.
>>
>> Timestamps have 2 second resolution on FAT.
> They have 2 second resolution, but are written *to disk* only every 30
> seconds
> or some such.
> And we have seen that concurrent processes did *not* see updated
> timestamps
> immediately.
I seriously question if this is the case. The NT filesystem internals
would not go to disk to fetch the timestamp if it was already cached in
RAM waiting to be flushed. Perhaps there is another explanation for
what you observed. In any case it took me more than 30 seconds to
write the log message, so I don't think something like that is related
to my problem, and I'm using the NTFS filesystem anyway.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 3 14:54:40 2004