On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 06:42:30AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> >Oh dear.
> >
> >Why not just make ext3 fsync() a no-op while you're at it?
> >
> >Distros can turn it back on if it's needed...
> >
> >Of course I'm not serious, but like atime, fsync() is something one
>
> No, they are nothing alike, and you are just making yourself look silly
> if you compare them. fsync has to do with fundamental guarantees about
> data.
Hi Jeff - just as a point to note, I think you should check the spec
for fsync before stating that:
"It is explicitly intended that a null implementation is permitted."
and
"... fsync() might or might not actually cause data to be written where it is
safe from a power failure."
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fsync.html
So fsync() does not have to provide the fundamental guarantees you think
it should.
Note - I'm not saying that this is at all sane (it's crazy, IMO), I'm just
pointing out that a "nofsync" mount option to avoid fsync overhead is a
legal thing to do....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
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]
