Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Christian Heimes <lists at cheimes.de> wrote: > >> [...] >> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/317781/comments/54. >> [...] >> > If I understand the post properly, it's up to the app to call fsync(), > and it's only necessary when you're doing one of the rename dances, or > updating a file in place. Basically, as he explains, fsync() is a very > heavyweight operation; I'm against calling it by default anywhere. > > To me, the flaw seem to be in the close() call (of the operating system). I'd expect the data to be in a persistent state once the close() returns. So there would be no need to fsync if the file gets closed anyway. Of course the close() call could take a while (up to 30 seconds in laptop mode), but if one does not want to wait that long, than one can continue without calling close() and take the risk. Of course, if the data should be on a persistant storage without closing the file (e.g. for database applications), than one has to carefully call the different sync methods, but that's an other story. Why has this ext4 problem not come up for other filesystems?
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4