xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Might have found a bug...

To: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <patl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Might have found a bug...
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:16:07 -0500
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <200105111625.f4BGP9u10062@xxxxxxxxxxx> <a3AFC1625.44E539C8@xxxxxxxxxxx> <s5gheyq8t1p.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Patrick J. LoPresti" wrote:

> Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > XFS uses delayed allocation / delayed write by default any data
> > written immediacy before a crash probably won't be on disk, this is
> > known behavior and isn't considered a bug, it's a trade off.
>
> Is this true even if I call fsync() or fdatasync() on the file?
>
> I am wondering about this because some applications (e.g., qmail)
> create a temp file, call fsync() to flush it to stable storage, use
> rename() to "commit" the file to its final home.
>
> With XFS, is this a reliable way to update a file on disk, or not?

Yes that is exactly what an application should do to ensure the
data has been written to disk.


>
>
>  - Pat

--
Russell Cattelan
cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>