>AFAIUI, the ZFS transaction group maintains write ordering, at least as far as >write()s to the fil e would be in the ZIL ahead of the rename() metadata updates. > >So I think the atomicity is maintained without requiring the application to >call fsync() before cl osing the file. If the TXG is applied and the rename() is included, then the file writes have been too, so foo would have the new contents. If the TXG containing the rename() isn't complete and on the ZIL device at crash time, foo would have the old contents. > >Posix doesn't require the OS to sync() the file contents on close for local >files like it does for NFS access? How odd.
perhaps sync() but not fsync(). But I'm not sure that that is the case. UFS does that, it schedules writing the modified content when the file is closed but onlyon the last close. Casper _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
