Sorry I accidentally mailed you instead of the list first, I've CC'd this one.
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 01:59:28PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > "Michael Brennan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 7/4/07, Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Have you tested with lastest 2.4 series too? > > > > Yes, I have tried the latest kernels from both 2.4 and 2.6 now and > > I found that 2.4 does not work while 2.6 works fine. > > Ok, right. > > > I did some research about it and looks like we're not suppose to use > > O_DIRECT but madvice or posix_fadvice. > > > > What is the main reason this non-buffering mechanism is used in parted? > > Is it for performance? Or something other, like reducing the risk of > > corrupting data? > > Probably to avoid possible corruption due a poweroff and like. I'm probably missing something, but, if a power failure happens in the middle of an unbuffered write, wouldn't that do more damage than if the write is still in the buffers and haven't been synced yet? > > > The other partitioning tools I've used seem to use normal write > > operations and then sync the disks right afterwards, on the other > > hand, they only write the partition table to disk and does not > > have the advanced features parted has. > > The only risk I can think is when a freeze or a poweroff happens but > we might output an warning on those cases and then move to > posix_fadvice. Output a warning on which cases? > > It need to be checked ... > _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
