On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:43:09AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > In summary, I don't agree with you that the misbehavior is correct, > but I do agree that copious expensive fsync()s should be assured to > work around the problem.
fsync() is, indeed, expensive. Lots of calls to fsync() that are not necessary for correct application operation EXCEPT as a workaround for lame filesystem re-ordering are a sure way to kill performance. I'd rather the filesystems were fixed than end up with sync;sync;sync; type folklore. Or just don't use lame filesystems. > As it happens, current versions of my own application should be safe > from this Linux filesystem bug, but older versions are not. There is > even a way to request fsync() on every file close, but that could be > quite expensive so it is not the default. So now you pepper your apps with an option to fsync() on close()? Ouch. Nico -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
