[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: synchronous mounts
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:03:57AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Linux is not syncing write() data for files on synchronously mounted
> > filesystems, and it isn't syncing write() data for ext2/3 files which
> > are operating under `chattr +S'.
> In the past, chattr +S and mount -o sync always resulted in sync
> metadata with no guarantees about data.
> I'm not sure this makes much sense, but it's what has always happened.
> For directories, the behaviour is fine, in particular as it gives us
> the same directory sync consistency semantics as synchronous BSD UFS.
> It's not clear to me that chattr/mount sync options make _any_ sense
> for regular file metadata. Rather than tightening up the semantics,
> I'd actually prefer to restrict them so that they only apply to
> directories. Users who set the sync bits are usually doing so for
> applications like MTAs where it's directory syncing which is
> what matters: the apps typically fsync the files themselves, anyway.

OK, that makes sense. Thanks. The `mount' and `chattr' manpages
need updating...

So shall we try to nail this down? Synchronous mounts and chattr +S
provide synchronous semantics for directory contents, diretory metadata
and directory inodes only. And fsync() will write out a file's data,
metadata and inode?

If this is correct then there are a few places where ext2 is
syncing stuff unnecessarily - file indirect blocks, etc. Not
very important at this stage I guess.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.073 / U:0.852 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site