Le 29/12/2015 19:20, marc a écrit :
Nope - not completely isolated. Applications that actually require
on-disk consistency invoke things such as fsync(2).
Every year or so there is a random blog post which notices that
if you truly care about your data, you'd better do fsync(2), fdatasync(2)
and
> Who "have to wait" ? Apps don't have to: they get the data from
> cache and write to cache. Maybe the disk-write policy depends on the IO
> scheduler as the read policy does, but this layer is completely isolated
> from the applications.
Nope - not completely isolated. Applications that a
Didier Kryn wrote:
>Down to zero?
Depends on what the system is doing !
I've just checked several of my systems, one showed 12k when I logged in and
dropped to 0. OK, that's a router so doesn't do much disk I/O - just a bit of
logging.
Another (my mail server amongst other things) showed 3
Le 29/12/2015 16:34, Simon Hobson a écrit :
Didier Kryn wrote:
That's the logic one would naively expect but I'm not sure of it. I'm
afraid the data remains in the cache and not backed-up to disk until some
process needs room in the cache. You can do the experiment of writing data to a
Didier Kryn wrote:
>That's the logic one would naively expect but I'm not sure of it. I'm
> afraid the data remains in the cache and not backed-up to disk until some
> process needs room in the cache. You can do the experiment of writing data to
> a usb memory stick and then wait long aft
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 01:29:29PM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
> A couple of years ago, I surprised a group I'd given a presentation to by
> "Safely removing" hardware before I yanked my USB stick !
Yeah. I noticed a tech savvy friend of mine yanking his flash drive
whenever he pleases. I told him
Am Montag, 28. Dezember 2015 schrieb Hendrik Boom:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 08:54:29PM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:37:08 +0100, Didier wrote in message
> > <56818154.2070...@in2p3.fr>:
> >
> > > Le 28/12/2015 19:22, Simon Hobson a écrit :
> > > > The cache gets written
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 08:54:29PM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:37:08 +0100, Didier wrote in message
> <56818154.2070...@in2p3.fr>:
>
> > Le 28/12/2015 19:22, Simon Hobson a écrit :
> > > The cache gets written out when the background system processes
> > > clean up and wri
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:37:08 +0100, Didier wrote in message
<56818154.2070...@in2p3.fr>:
> Le 28/12/2015 19:22, Simon Hobson a écrit :
> > The cache gets written out when the background system processes
> > clean up and write the dirty pages out to disk. How long this takes
> > depends on tuneabl
Le 28/12/2015 19:22, Simon Hobson a écrit :
The cache gets written out when the background system processes clean up and
write the dirty pages out to disk. How long this takes depends on tuneable
kernel parameters and how busy the system is. If the system, and in particular
the storage, is oth
Steve Litt wrote:
> I did a test. I created hello.txt, put "hello world" in it, saved it,
> and yanked out the thumb three seconds later. Of course the
> whole /media/sdd1 tree vanished. When I plugged in the thumb again,
> hello.txt contained exactly what I'd typed in it. Now of course, this
> i
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:20:33 -0500
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 28/12/2015 14:29, Simon Hobson a écrit :
> > >Didier Kryn wrote:
> > >
> > >>>There remains a fundamental problem with automatic mount/umount.
> > >>>While automountin
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:20:01 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Congratulations, Steve.
>
> There remains a fundamental problem with automatic mount/umount.
> While automounting is safe, auto-unmounting is not if it is triggered
> by device removal. Unmounting must be done *before* removing
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 05:17:01PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 28/12/2015 14:29, Simon Hobson a écrit :
> >Didier Kryn wrote:
> >
> >>>There remains a fundamental problem with automatic mount/umount. While
> >>>automounting is safe, auto-unmounting is not if it is triggered by device
> >>>rem
Le 28/12/2015 14:29, Simon Hobson a écrit :
Didier Kryn wrote:
>There remains a fundamental problem with automatic mount/umount. While
automounting is safe, auto-unmounting is not if it is triggered by device removal.
>Unmounting must be done*before* removing the device if anything has been
Didier Kryn wrote:
> There remains a fundamental problem with automatic mount/umount. While
> automounting is safe, auto-unmounting is not if it is triggered by device
> removal.
> Unmounting must be done *before* removing the device if anything has been
> written to it, otherwise data is los
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 09:03:35PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
[cut]
>
> Finally, I'd prefer this program run as a user other than root (which
> it's doing right now).
>
Hi Steve,
in Debian/Devuan and derivatives it might be sufficient to have your
automounter run under a user which belongs to
Le 28/12/2015 03:03, Steve Litt a écrit :
Hi all,
I have the automounter running, incompletioncies and all. It's running
off of Runit, but I'm sure it would work with sysvinit or /etc/rc.local
or pretty much anything else.
Assuming you don't actually edit anything, when you plug in a thumb
driv
Is it safe to assume you're going to commit this to the Devuan repo?
Linux O'Beardly
@LinuxOBeardly
http://o.beard.ly
linux.obear...@gmail.com
On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Steve Litt
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have the automounter running, incompletioncies and all. It's running
> off of Runit,
Hi all,
I have the automounter running, incompletioncies and all. It's running
off of Runit, but I'm sure it would work with sysvinit or /etc/rc.local
or pretty much anything else.
Assuming you don't actually edit anything, when you plug in a thumb
drive, all its partitions open within 5 seconds
20 matches
Mail list logo
