On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 02:00:13AM +0100, Christian Stroetmann wrote: > I really do know what you want to say, despite that this example is > based on a bug in another system than the FS. But there will be > other examples, for sure. Sure, but this thread started because someone wanted an "atomic non-durable file write API", apparently because it was too slow to use fsync(). If people use databases, it's not a problem; databases use fsync(), but they use it properly and they provide the proper transactional interfaces that people want. The problem comes when people try to implement their own databases using small files for each row and column of the database, or for each registry variable. Then they complain when fsync() is to expensive, because they need to use fsync() for every single 3 bytes of data they store in their badly implemented database. The bottom line is that if you want atomic updates of state information, you need to use fsync() or fdatasync(). If this is a performance bottleneck, then you're doing something wrong. Maybe you shouldn't be writing a third of a megabyte on every URL click, on the main GUI thread; maybe the user doesn't need to remember every single URL that was visited even if the power suddenly fails (maybe it's enough if you write that information to disk every 3-5 minutes, and less if you're running on battery). Or maybe you shouldn't be using hundreds of small state files, and screw up the dirty flag handling. But regardless, you're doing something wrong/stupid. - Ted -- 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
