Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably the first step towards this goal would be to look at how to have cp,
mv, etc all take advantage of copying to a temporary file that would be
synchronised with fsync() before being renamed. Also it would be good to
have an option to call fsync()
This would be a good feature to have, it's a pity that the internal copy()
function in coreutils doesn't support this.
Probably the first step towards this goal would be to look at how to have cp,
mv, etc all take advantage of copying to a temporary file that would be
synchronised with fsync()
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would be a good feature to have, it's a pity that the internal copy()
function in coreutils doesn't support this.
Probably the first step towards this goal would be to look at how to have cp,
mv, etc all take advantage of copying to a temporary file
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 23:39, Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's probably going overboard, but some application might
even want to call fsync on each containing directory.
I expect that the overhead of calling fsync on the directory is negligible
compared to the overhead of calling
4 matches
Mail list logo
