There's some kind of background sync in almost every OS, certainly in all the Unix-like OSes OpenAFS runs on. But it's stupid and not tunable to be appropriate for things like database servers or file servers (by necessity; the service itself knows best what sync strategy is appropriate); it's best considered a last resort.
-- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates [email protected] [email protected] unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of chas williams - CONTRACTOR [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 11:46 To: Andrew Deason Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] Re: The ihandle sync thing On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:14:09 -0500 Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:04:45 -0400 > chas williams - CONTRACTOR <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:19:07 -0400 > > Chaskiel Grundman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Just because ext3 (in ordered mode) does something doesn't mean it's > > > correct or something you should count on. If you don't > > > fsync/fdatasync, there is no guarantee your data is on the media or > > > ever will be on the media. > > Doesn't pdflush guarantee this? That something doesn't stay around in > memory forever. On a modern Linux, yes. On other operating systems, I don't know. I imagine Solaris has something but off the top of my head I have no idea its behavior with regard to ufs and timely flushing of dirty pages. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
