lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
    Matthew Garrett wrote:
    > I disagree with this approach. If fsync() means anything other than "Get
    > my data on disk and then return" then we're breaking guarantees to
    > applications.

    Due to lack of storage dev writeback cache flushing, we are indeed
    breaking that guarantee in many situations...


    > The problem is that you're insisting that the only way
    > applications can ensure that their requests occur in order is to use
    > fsync(), which will achieve that but also provides guarantees above and
    > beyond what the majority of applications want.

    That remains a true statement... without the *sync* syscalls, you
    still do not have a _guarantee_ writes occur in a certain order.

    Jeff




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-26 03:39    [W:0.021 / U:1.316 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site