On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 10:50:50AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > "Yoshinori K. Okuji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:16:50 +0100, > > Thierry Laronde wrote: > > > My tests were made with 2.2.x... So it's not 2.4.x specific. > > > > Really?! That's too bad! > > > > > I have neither no time to really dive in the code to see what the hell's > > > going on. > > > > Ok. Any volunteers on this list? > > Thierry, this Linux behavior being described disturbs the heck out of me > so I just want to be clear: > > Are you talking about tests with the loopback device? Or do you know > this problem is endemic with all device types. > > The loopback device in Linux has some shortcuts in it (at least it did > as of some time ago when I looked at it), so I could believe that "sync" > didn't work quite correctly with it.
Since the aim was to create virtual disks, indeed, I only used the loop device in Linux. But since you encountered the very same kind of behavior, I made the assumption that the problem was at a more "general" level in Linux, the way fs is handled via some cache strategy. So, yes, for me : only on loop device [others untested]. Cheers, -- Thierry Laronde (Alceste) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub
