Re: Proposal for "proper" durable fsync() and fdatasync()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux