On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 06:42:30AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jakob Oestergaard wrote: > >Oh dear. > > > >Why not just make ext3 fsync() a no-op while you're at it? > > > >Distros can turn it back on if it's needed... > > > >Of course I'm not serious, but like atime, fsync() is something one > > No, they are nothing alike, and you are just making yourself look silly > if you compare them. fsync has to do with fundamental guarantees about > data.
Hi Jeff - just as a point to note, I think you should check the spec for fsync before stating that: "It is explicitly intended that a null implementation is permitted." and "... fsync() might or might not actually cause data to be written where it is safe from a power failure." http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fsync.html So fsync() does not have to provide the fundamental guarantees you think it should. Note - I'm not saying that this is at all sane (it's crazy, IMO), I'm just pointing out that a "nofsync" mount option to avoid fsync overhead is a legal thing to do.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/