Joachim König wrote:
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.
I wouldn't, because that would mean that every cp -r would effectively
do an fsync() for each individual file it copies, which would bog down
in the case of copying many small files. Operating systems aggressively
buffer file systems for good reason: performance of the common case.
Why has this ext4 problem not come up for other filesystems?
It has come up for XFS many many times, for example
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/37435
ext3 was resillient to the problem because of its default allocation
policy; now that ext4 has implemented the same optimization XFS had
before, it shares the problems.
_______________________________________________
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
