[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090401052050.GA20456@sucs.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 06:20:50 +0100
From: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
"Andreas T.Auer" <andreas.t.auer_lkml_73537@...us.ath.cx>,
Alberto Gonzalez <info@...bu.es>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ext4 and the "30 second window of death"
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 09:50:10PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> But still, you're right. In some cases, you really want "fsync()" to
> mean "fsync()". I'm not sure how often such applications _should_ be
Hmm. This is starting to sound a lot like the OSX fsync (
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/Manpages/man2/fsync.2.html
) where there is effectively a "fsync harder" syscall
(F_FULLFSYNC fcntl11).
> If all they are doing is browsing the web, and the issue is firefox's
> desire to constantly write to their home directory, the user should be
> able to say, "you know, my battery life is more important that making
> sure that every last web page I visit is saved away in some file ---
> Firefox's 'Awesome Bar' really isn't worth that much to me."
The "Awesome(bar) Firefox 3 fsync Problem" isn't that you are missing a
day's worth of browsing. The issue is that the sqlite database might
become corrupt and lose _all history_ if fsync lies/doesn't happen and a
crash occurs ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435712#c10).
With Firefox 2 there was a file swap happening so an fsync wasn't vital.
Just out of curiosity, when laptop mode is happening is there a
guarantee that writes to other files won't be reordered to before the
fsync?
--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists