journald fsync() errors

[lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lennart Poettering)]

On Di, 03.04.18 14:10, vcaputo at pengaru.com (vcaputo at pengaru.com) wrote:

> Back when I worked on making fsync() in journald asynchronous, I
> preserved the existing strategy of ignoring fsync() errors.
> 
> In reading [1], I am reminded of this situation and am again wondering
> why this is the case.  Shouldn't journald trigger a journal rotate when
> fsync() realizes an IO error, marking the previous journal as corrupt?
> 
> Can someone remind me of the rationale behind the existing approach?

Hmm, you are right, we should rotate if fsync() fails, indeed.

Would love to review/merge a patch for that.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat