Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Christian Heimes <li...@cheimes.de> wrote:
[...]
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/317781/comments/54.
[...]
If I understand the post properly, it's up to the app to call fsync(),
and it's only necessary when you're doing one of the rename dances, or
updating a file in place. Basically, as he explains, fsync() is a very
heavyweight operation; I'm against calling it by default anywhere.
To me, the flaw seem to be in the close() call (of the operating
system). I'd expect the data to be
in a persistent state once the close() returns. So there would be no
need to fsync if the file gets closed anyway.
Of course the close() call could take a while (up to 30 seconds in
laptop mode), but if one does
not want to wait that long, than one can continue without calling
close() and take the risk.
Of course, if the data should be on a persistant storage without closing
the file (e.g. for database
applications), than one has to carefully call the different sync
methods, but that's an other story.
Why has this ext4 problem not come up for other filesystems?
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
