Re: Linux 2.6.29

Alan Cox
2009-03-27T18:33:49Z

> more common either. If you have a desktop app that uses fsync(), that
> application is DEAD IN THE WATER if people are doing anything else on the
> machine. Those multi-second pauses aren't going to make people happy.

We added threading about ten years ago.

> So the fact is, "people should always use fsync" simply isn't a realistic
> expectation, nor is it historically accurate.

Far too many people don't - and it is unfortunate but people should learn
to write quality software.
>
> Alternatives should be looked at. For desktop apps, the best alternatives
> are likely simply stronger default consistency guarantees. Exactly the
> "we don't guarantee that your data hits the disk, but we do guarantee that
> if you renamed on top of another file, you'll not have lost _both_
> contents".

Rename is a really nasty case and the standards don't help at all here so
I agree entirely. There *isn't* a way to write a correct portable
application that achieves that guarantee without the kernel making it for
you.