Should 'sync' stop terminal/system activity ? (SUMMARY)

[Erwin Eder]

In article <265 at atbull.UUCP> i write:
>_The configuration:
>	60830,UNIX V.3,16MB
>
>_The Situation:
>	2MB for BUFFERS
>		'sync' stops all terminal/system activity for
>		some seconds ( until buffers are written to
>		disk ? )
>
>	1MB for BUFFERS
>		no troubles with sync
>	
>	( of course 2MB BUFFERS is preferable, but users
>	complain about terminals freezing for no obvious
>	reason )
>
>_The question:
>	Is it normal/ok for sync to freeze terminal activity ?

Answers : 
1>From: tuvie!dpmizar!lcz (Lee Ziegenhals)
1>
1>I would appreciate any information you have on this problem.  I ran into the
1>same thing on a Motorola 68030 system running SystemV/68.  Motorola's response
1>was basically (1) set the file hardening switch (which turns the cache into
1>a write-through cache -- at a tremendous performance hit), or (2) use fewer
1>buffers.  I don't really consider either of these an acceptable solution.
1>
1>I'm hoping to get more information from the engineers at Motorola, but I'm
1>not holding my breath...
1>
1>-Lee Ziegenhals


2>From: Bruce Funk <tuvie!osiris.cso.uiuc.edu!funk>
2>
2>Please summarize or send copy of responses!
(Ok! Done...)

I hope there will be more responses in comp.unix.questions plus
comp.unix.wizards plus comp.bugs.sys5 !
Followups go to comp.unix.wizards.

Please respond by e-mail. I will post a summary if there is enough interest.

thanx

Erwin Eder
-- 
+---/~~~~\---------------+--------------------------------------------+
|  /      \  <-- this is |  and this    uunet!mcvax!tuvie!atbull!ee   |
|   \____/       a tree. |  is me -->     In-Real-Life Erwin Eder     |
+-----||-----------------+--------------------------------------------+