[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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean