It isn't, because otherwise it would be showing the ~same performance with and without sync commands, as I showed in the thread. There is a significant performance loss for every drive, but Apple's is way worse.
There is no real excuse for a single sector write to take ~20ms to flush to NAND, all the while the NAND controller is generating some 10MB/s of DRAM traffic. This is a dumb firmware design issue.
The competitions controller may be ignoring the F_FULLFSYNC. This is a known issue which is why apple have approved vendors for mac pro drives.
It isn't, because otherwise it would be showing the ~same performance with and without sync commands, as I showed in the thread. There is a significant performance loss for every drive, but Apple's is way worse.
There is no real excuse for a single sector write to take ~20ms to flush to NAND, all the while the NAND controller is generating some 10MB/s of DRAM traffic. This is a dumb firmware design issue.
It may be interpreting it differently. You arent comparing apples to apples, quite literally.
Why not compare macOS and linux on approved x86 mac hardware. i.e. fusion drive or whatever.
Also, as suggested - try F_BARRIERFSYNC, which flushes anything before the barrier (used for WAL IIRC).
8 replies →