On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:28:29PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Change the behavior of core.fsyncObjectFiles to also sync the > directory entry. I don't have a case where this broke, just going by > paranoia and the fsync(2) manual page's guarantees about its behavior. I've also often wondered whether this is necessary. Given the symptom of "oops, this object is there but with 0 bytes" after a hard crash (power off, etc), my assumption is that the metadata is being journaled but the actual data is not. Which would imply this isn't needed, but may just be revealing my naive view of how filesystems work. And of course all of my experience is on ext4 (which doubly confuses me, because my systems typically have data=ordered, which I thought would solve this). Non-journalling filesystems or other modes likely behave differently, but if this extra fsync carries a cost, we may want to make it optional. > sha1-file.c | 19 ++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) We already fsync pack files, but we don't fsync their directories. If this is important to do, we should be doing it there, too. We also don't fsync ref files (nor packed-refs) at all. If fsyncing files is important for reliability, we should be including those, too. It may be tempting to say that the important stuff is in objects and the refs can be salvaged from the commit graph, but my experience says otherwise. Missing, broken, or mysteriously-rewound refs cause confusing user-visible behavior, and when compounded with pruning operations like "git gc" they _do_ result in losing objects. -Peff
