|To:||Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: Directory fsync|
|From:||Zhu Han <schumi.han@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:20:31 +0800|
|Cc:||xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Dkim-signature:||v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3Exb62ywbASbtmvCb7P3K8f/e1ilTObgHTwR60qFkK0=; b=XN0c4OsDVE+88xx3Z9xvf00Zu63iQ4b48NJZ69Thvgzs/sHEdbzoprC/fbTYpf1CsP d3kNAXmnFemVg9C80Edxnz1SJzh8pgMi5Vwusjy7CwnTXzG9S0eii+l1VBWCKYY1ndDQ fuhvZeqKdbvaQgnekwgphC6Kja1glYq+PxXas=|
|References:||<CAF7KpS8h2KDsLVzwAj=5ig-yuuiCwjQSVk0Nfy9UJ0qiyAqeCQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110923163354.GA24319@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201109240109.45532@xxxxxx>|
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you all.
I see the importance of following the standard. But I am glad to know the current implementation of XFS enforce more strict fsync semantic, just as every application developer wishes.
What I worry is not much applications syncs the directory after new files are created, even if PostgreSQL and many other NoSQL database. If the current implementation forces more strict semantic, it makes our mind much much more peaceful.
And , not many runtime supports sync of directory, e.g. java ecosystem does not have such support... So it is very very hard to follow this standard.
For God's sake, the right semantic of fsync should be "The users wants to assure the file is retrievable after system crash or power failure if fsync returned successfully".
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|