[Melbourne-pm] An intermittent problem with open for append

[David Dick]

Paul Fenwick wrote:
> Oops, I meant to qualify that with "provided your records are less than the 
> atomic buffer size".  You're quite right that if we hit records bigger than 
> our atomic buffer, we have to move to locking.
>   
Very interesting thread.  I had no idea that the kernel can mangle the 
output based on block size.  However, at least in my tests, there will 
be no data lost, but it may be mangled?