Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753896AbZC2Qtb (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:49:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752327AbZC2QtT (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:49:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:60355 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751222AbZC2QtS (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:49:18 -0400 Message-ID: <49CFA684.2040102@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:49:08 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Graham Murray CC: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Zero length files - an alternative approach? References: <87bprka9sg.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <87bprka9sg.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1795 Lines: 43 Graham Murray wrote: > Just a thought on the ongoing discussion of dataloss with ext4 vs ext3. > > Taking the common scenario: > Read oldfile > create newfile file > write newfile data > close newfile > rename newfile to oldfile > > When using this scenario, the application writer wants to ensure that > either the old or new content are present. With delayed allocation, this > can lead to zero length files. Most of the suggestions on how to address > this have involved syncing the data either before the rename or making > the rename sync the data. > > What about, instead of 'bringing forward' the allocation and flushing of > the data, would it be possible to instead delay the rename until after > the blocks for newfile have been allocated and the data buffers flushed? > This would keep the performance benefits of delayed allocation etc and > also satisfy the applications developers' apparent dislike of using > fsync(). It would give better performance that syncing the data at > rename time (either using fsync() or automatically) and satisfy the > requirements that either the old or new content is present. > > I am not a filesystem developer, so do not know how feasible this would > be. > This has been suggested, I believe. In filesystem terms, it means inserting a barrier before the rename operation, meaning that any write operations needed to carry out the rename must not take place until all write operations from the previous calls have completed. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/