On Sat, 2013-03-30 at 21:18 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Myklebust, Trond
> <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-03-30 at 19:53 -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >> On 2013-03-30, at 16:21, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 03/30/2013 05:57 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 30, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Sat 2013-03-30 13:08:39, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >> >>>> On 2013-03-30, at 12:49 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >> >>>>> Hmm, really? AFAICT it would be simple to provide an
> >> >>>>> open_deleted_file("directory") syscall. You'd open_deleted_file(),
> >> >>>>> copy source file into it, then fsync(), then link it into filesystem.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> That should have atomicity properties reflected.
> >> >>>> Actually, the open_deleted_file() syscall is quite useful for many
> >> >>>> different things all by itself. Lots of applications need to create
> >> >>>> temporary files that are unlinked at application failure (without a
> >> >>>> race if app crashes after creating the file, but before unlinking).
> >> >>>> It also avoids exposing temporary files into the namespace if other
> >> >>>> applications are accessing the directory.
> >> >>> Hmm. open_deleted_file() will still need to get a directory... so it
> >> >>> will still need a path. Perhaps open("/foo/bar/mnt", O_DELETED) would
> >> >>> be acceptable interface?
> >> >>> Pavel
> >> >> ...and what's the big plan to make this work on anything other than ext4 and btrfs?
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Trond
> >> >
> >> > I know that change can be a good thing, but are we really solving a pressing problem given that application developers have dealt with open/rename as the way to get "atomic" file creation for several decades now ?
> >>
> >> Using open()+rename() has side effects:
> >> - changes ctime/mtime on parent directory
> >> - leaves temporary file in path during creation
> >> - leaves temporary file in namespace during operations, and after crash
> >
> > So what is the actual problem that is being solved? Yes, the above may
> > be disadvantages, but none of them have proven to be show-stoppers so
> > far.
> >
> > So far, I've seen no justification for Andy's atomicity requirement
> > other than "it would be nice if...". That's not enough IMO...
>
> ISTM vpsendfile (or whatever it's called) plus a way to create deleted
> files plus a way to relink deleted files gives atomic copies. Perhaps
> this is less efficient than would be ideal for OCFS2, though.
What real-life problem does the atomicity requirement solve? None of our
customers have ever asked for it. They don't care...
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
--
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
