lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()
    Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > Jamie Lokier wrote:
    >> By durable, I mean that fsync() should actually commit writes to
    >> physical stable storage,
    >
    > Yes, it should.
    >
    >
    >> I was surprised that fsync() doesn't do this already. There was a lot
    >> of effort put into block I/O write barriers during 2.5, so that
    >> journalling filesystems can force correct write ordering, using disk
    >> flush cache commands.
    >>
    >> After all that effort, I was very surprised to notice that Linux 2.6.x
    >> doesn't use that capability to ensure fsync() flushes the disk cache
    >> onto stable storage.
    >
    > It's surprising you are surprised, given that this [lame] fsync behavior
    > has remaining consistently lame throughout Linux's history.

    Maybe I am confused, but isn't this is what fsync() does today whenever
    barriers are enabled (the fsync() invalidates the drive's write cache).

    ric


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-26 16:17    [W:0.022 / U:90.300 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site