Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:32:14 +0000 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.29 |
| |
> more common either. If you have a desktop app that uses fsync(), that > application is DEAD IN THE WATER if people are doing anything else on the > machine. Those multi-second pauses aren't going to make people happy.
We added threading about ten years ago.
> So the fact is, "people should always use fsync" simply isn't a realistic > expectation, nor is it historically accurate.
Far too many people don't - and it is unfortunate but people should learn to write quality software. > > Alternatives should be looked at. For desktop apps, the best alternatives > are likely simply stronger default consistency guarantees. Exactly the > "we don't guarantee that your data hits the disk, but we do guarantee that > if you renamed on top of another file, you'll not have lost _both_ > contents".
Rename is a really nasty case and the standards don't help at all here so I agree entirely. There *isn't* a way to write a correct portable application that achieves that guarantee without the kernel making it for you.
| |