[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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

    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.021 / U:19.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site