Joachim König wrote: > 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. I wouldn't, because that would mean that every cp -r would effectively do an fsync() for each individual file it copies, which would bog down in the case of copying many small files. Operating systems aggressively buffer file systems for good reason: performance of the common case. > Why has this ext4 problem not come up for other filesystems? It has come up for XFS many many times, for example https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/37435 ext3 was resillient to the problem because of its default allocation policy; now that ext4 has implemented the same optimization XFS had before, it shares the problems.
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