> > > 2. The remote server has successfully received and done the SMBflush
> > > request.
> >
> > When fsync returns (2) has happened. The server has read and responded
to
> > the SMBflush. But we don't know if it actually wrote anything to disk.
> >
> > There is no way the smbfs client can know w
> The local system isn't running in any ram disk when using smbfs. Even if
> you connect to a localhost samba server, that is a remote system as far as
> smbfs is concerned.
>
> I'm not sure I understood you here.
>
> /Urban
Sorry I didn't mention it clearly. The local machine does not have any
> fsync() (and also fdatasync()?) will cause the local kernel to write any
> modified pages, and for smbfs it also sends a "SMBflush" that tells the
> other end to sync it to disk.
>
> For mmap()'ed data you can use msync().
>
> Haven't tested if open(..., O_SYNC) works.
>
> /Urban
So when fsync(
> > Then, no matter which one of the above two situations happens, the data
is
> > not yet written to the physical storage at that time, right? Should I
need
> > to call fsync() each time after calling write()? Thanks a lot!
>
> Yes, at each point where you want to ensure the data is written (not
Dear all,
If I mount a remote linux partition using smbmount and write one file to
that partition. How could I make sure that that file is really written to
the remote disk successfully? I know that some cache mechanisms existed in
linux kernel. So I guess there may be two possibilities as below:
