On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 09:18:30AM +0530, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>
> Yes, but fsync_mode=nobarrier is little different than
> a general nobarrier option. The fsync_mode=nobarrier is
> only controlling the flush policy for fsync() path, unlike
> the nobarrier mount option which is applicable at all
> places in the filesystem.
What are you really trying to accomplish with fsync_mode=nobarrier?
And when does that distinction have a difference?
What sort of guarantees are you trying to offer, given a particular
hardware and software design?
I gather that fsync_mode=nobarrier means one of two things:
* "screw you, application writer; your data consistency means nothing to me",
OR
* "we have sufficient guarantees --- e.g., UPS/battery protection to
guarantee that even if we lose AC mains, or the user press and holds
the power button for eight seconds, we will give storage devices a
sufficient grace period to write everything to persistent storage. We
also have the appropriate hardware to warn of an impending low-battery
shutdown and software to perform a graceful shutdown in that eventuality."
If it's the latter, then nobarrier works just as well --- even better.
If it's the former, *why* is it considered a good thing to ignore the
requests of userspace? And without any hardware assurances to provide
a backstop against power drop, do you care or not care about file
system consistency?
Why do you want the distinction between fsymc_mode=nobarrier and
nobarrier? When would this distinction be considered a good thing?
- Ted
