| |||||||||||||
Temporary files: RAM or disk?Temporary files: RAM or disk?Posted Jun 4, 2012 11:20 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)In reply to: Temporary files: RAM or disk? by andresfreund Parent article: Temporary files: RAM or disk?
To be fair, O_SYNC is much stronger than what some people might reasonably want to expect.
O_SYNC means every write request is safe before the write system call returns.
An alternate semantic is that a file is safe once the last "close" on it returns. I believe this has been implemented for VFAT filesystems which people sometimes like to pull out of their computers without due care.
This is nearly equivalent to always calling fsync() just before close().
Adding a generic mount option to impose this semantic on any fs might be acceptable. It might at least silence some complaints.
(Log in to post comments)
Temporary files: RAM or disk? Posted Jun 4, 2012 12:19 UTC (Mon) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
> To be fair, O_SYNC is much stronger than what some people might reasonably want to expect.
> O_SYNC means every write request is safe before the write system call returns. Hm. Not sure if that really is what people expect. But I can certainly see why it would be useful for some applications. Should probably be a fd option or such though? I would be really unhappy if a rm -rf or copy -r would behave that way.
Sometimes I wish userspace controllable metadata transactions where possible with a sensible effort/interface...
|
|||||||||||||