xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: DS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: is the flush-on-close-after-truncate still needed?
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:28:00 +1000
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080627071312.GB15920@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: DS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <4859415B.3000009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200806181049.07812.dchinner@xxxxxxxxx> <20080626210904.GA15920@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <486407EB.70703@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20080627071312.GB15920@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 09:13:12AM +0200, DS wrote:
> Thanx for interest.
> 
> There is no chance to change all scripts (too many customers and
> thousands and thousands perl/php skripts).
> 
> I think it isn't right way compiling own perl/php libs with needed changes on
> open/fopen function.

Overwriting files by truncating then first and then not fsync'ing
the file is a sure way to lose data if the system crashes.  That's
an application bug, not a filesystem bug, because the filesystem is
only doing what it is told to do. XFS is ensuring that lazy
application writers are unlikely to lose data when they carelessly
overwriting data.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


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