Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:47:28 +0100 | From | Matthias Andree <> | Subject | Re: synchronous mounts |
| |
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> A `dirsync' option does make sense though, for the reasons which > Stephen outlined.
So we could then have:
- (no option) == async, which only syncs file + data on fsync() or O_SYNC (BSD calls this async, it may corrupt file systems because writes are out-of-order) - dirsync, which syncs directories and metadata and causes ordered writes thereof (BSD calls this noasync), no chance of corrupting on-disk structure unrecoverably. - sync, which syncs all filesystem operations (BSD calls this sync also), will have at most 1 dirty block at a time on non-journaled file systems(?)
I expect sync to be faster on journalled file systems in that case, because "in-order execution" to journal will probably cause linear writes, while on ext2, it will involve seeking.
-- Matthias Andree
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |