| |||||||||||||
BothBothPosted Mar 14, 2009 15:25 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem by endecotp Parent article: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem What I read from this very interesting discussion is that both assumptions are right depending on the circumstances. An inherently unsafe fs like ext2 is not expected to guarantee anything, and mv on ext2 may be left in a unstable state after a crash (including zero-length files). Coreutils developers probably did not see fit to fsync since it would not increase the robustness significantly in these cases: the system might crash in the middle of the fsync anyway. But on a journalled fs like ext3 users will expect their system to be robust in the event of a crash -- and as the XFS debacle shows, not only for metadata. Both are POSIX-compliant, only ext3 is held to higher standards than ext2. What this means for ext4 is obvious.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||