xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Directory fsync

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Directory fsync
From: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 01:09:44 +0200
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zhu Han <schumi.han@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20110923163354.GA24319@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: it-management http://it-management.at
References: <CAF7KpS8h2KDsLVzwAj=5ig-yuuiCwjQSVk0Nfy9UJ0qiyAqeCQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110923163354.GA24319@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.3-zmi; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; )
On Freitag, 23. September 2011 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> As far as standards are concerned it is.  As far as the current XFS
> implementation is concerned you don't need it as the file fsync will
> also force out all transactions that belong to the create.

Aren't you giving O_PONIES to the users? ;-)

I understand your description, but we should always tell people to use a 
directory fsync to be sure. Their applications might run on other 
filesystems, or run for 10 years, and maybe XFS's implementation changes 
in between. And maybe in historical kernels even XFS's implementation 
wasn't like it's now?

@schumi: If your application should be able to run in a safe way on 
other filesystems, or other kernel releases, or other unixes, it's best 
to fsync the directory inode too. It's better to use it always, then 
nothing won't break.

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services: Protéger
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531

// Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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