Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:36:31 -0400 | | From | Jeff Garzik <> | | Subject | Re: 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
|  |