From: fredex AT fcshome DOT stoneham DOT ma DOT us Message-Id: <199608211633.MAA03385@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us> Subject: Re: interrupting with ctrl-C To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: from "Eli Zaretskii" at Aug 21, 96 09:55:21 am Content-Type: text Thinking furiously, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Bruce Foley wrote: > > > As well as the suggestion by Eli, also consider closing > > your file after each record has been written and then re-opening it. > > This is because writing to the file is not enough to ensure that it > > has actually been committed to disk. Closing the file will ensure > > this happens. > > You don't need to close a file to make sure all the data is delivered to > disk. Just call `fsync' library function, and it will do the same much > quicker (`close' and `open' are very expensive). Calling `sync' will do > the same for all open files. > If you're using the open()/read()/write()/close() family, you should also be able to dup() the file handle then close the duplicate, which should cause that particular file to be flushed to disk. I'd expect this to have a lower impact on system load than a sync() or fsync(), since it deals with only this one file. Fred -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .---- Fred Smith / Office: fred AT computrition DOT com ( /__ ,__. __ __ / __ : / 508-663-2524 / / / /__) / / /__) .+' Home: fredex AT fcshome DOT stoneham DOT ma DOT us / / (__ (___ (__(_ (___ / :__ 617-438-5471 -------------------------------- Jude 1:24,25 ---------------------------------