On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:50:35PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > > Peter Bierman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think the intent of fsync() is closer to what you describe, but the > > convention is that fsync() hands responsibility to the disk hardware. > > The "convention" was also that the hardware didn't confirm the command until > it had actually been executed... > > None of this matters to the application. A specification for fsync(2) that > says it forces the data to be shuffled around under the hood but fundamentally > the doesn't change the semantics (that the data isn't guaranteed to be in > non-volatile storage) means that fsync didn't really do anything.
The real issue is this isn't specific to OS X. I know FreeBSD enables write-caching on IDE drives by default, and I suspect linux does as well. It's probably worth adding a big, fat WARNING in the docs in strategic places about this. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
