Re: Linux does not care for data integrity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff Garzik wrote:

Bill Davidsen wrote:

This would change the meaning of fsync from "force out the data" to "wait for the data to be written" in some implementations.


This is the meaning of fsync: copies all in-core parts of a file to disk, and waits until the device reports that all parts are on stable storage.

Anything less is a bug.


How about anything more? The truth is that much common hardware doesn't really make the cache to disk move visible, and turning off cache really hurts performance. And it would appear that fsync force a lot more data out of memory than just the blocks for the file in question.

However, the point I was making is that it would be useful to be able to tell when the write to non-volatile took place, not to force that to happen. Not to do anything which would flush a lot of other stuff and busy the drive. What I suggest is NOT fsync, just a way to assure ordering.

--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux