OT: fsync semantics (was Re: Linux kernel ....)

[cmikk]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:12:00 -0500 (EST) , Russell Nelson writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>  > I believe that ext2 honors fsync() as well (but not in 2.3 yet).
>  > Could someone who knows more confirm?  The metadata is still
>  > asyncronous though so FFS with softupdates is probably better.
> 
> ext2 has always honored fsync.  You fsync a file, and its data goes
> off to disk.  You fsync a directory and its data goes off to disk.
> The only reason this surprises anyone is because the BSD hackers
> decided that fsyncing a file should also fsync the directory the file
> resides in.

What use is syncing the data to disk, if you can't
get to it after a crash?  It might as well have just
stayed in cache otherwise....

-- 
Chris Mikkelson  |  "Unfortunately, simplicity is a complicated mess
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  of a concept."   --Taner Edis