xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?

To: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:59:02 -0500
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <200806181049.07812.dchinner@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <4859415B.3000009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200806181049.07812.dchinner@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 June 2008 10:09 am, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> After Lachlan's fix to separate on-disk and in-memory sizes, and only
>> update on-disk when data is on-disk
>> (http://www.linux.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-05/msg00020.html) is the
>> XFS_ITRUNCATED flag / flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?
> 
> Yes, because waiting 30s before writing back /etc/fstab after it
> has been modified will result in lots of bug reports of /etc/fstab
> being zero length after a crash instead of being full of NULLs.
> We have had very few reports of zero length files or files with
> NULLs since this change was made (regardless of the file size 
> update ordering changes). i.e. if we remove this code then the
> common case where NULL files occurred will return - only this
> time as zero length files.

Ah, right.  Ok, thanks!

-Eric

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 


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