--- Comment #5 from Brian K. White <br...@aljex.com> ---
Any program could make this same "just to be safe" argument practically every
time they ever close-on-write for any reason. If they wrote anything, it was
always for some reason, and they want to know for sure that it really got
safely written. There is nothing special about rsync in that regard. cp might
as well have it. The ">" operator in bash might as well have it.
The kernel and vfs and hardware drivers all already do whatever is necessary in
that regard, and it's generally wrong for any application to try to do it
itself. Otherwise the disk would be in a constant state of sync()'ing and never
actually manage to get any other work done. Consider a multiuser host with 500
rsync receivers. Each individual sync() is incredibly disruptive to all other
processes. "Everyone hold up while we flush the disk buffer...". The entire
system waits while that happens.
That way just leads to things like the example you just used, lower layers that
just start lying about sync() to upper layers because too many apps use it when
they shouldn't. "Fine, if apps are going to sync all the time, that ends up
being 86 times a second between all procs running at any given moment, which is
unsupportable, so we'll just make sync() a no-op stub and we'll do it when
it's' actually required, and apps can sync()-away to their hearts content".
I think the only reason rsync might have to sync is if you built rsync as a
self-contained bootable executable like memtest86, or possibly as an MS-DOS
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html