[linux-lvm] fsync() and LVM
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Mon Mar 16 21:53:30 UTC 2009
Greg Freemyer wrote:
>>> I haven't seen anyone claim yet that there is support for fsync(), which
>> must return the status of the completion of the operation to the
>> application. If it does, then the discussion could turn to performance.
>>
> Is your specific interest to ext3?
No, it is whether a useful fsync() is possible over LVM.
> If so, I suggest you post a
> question there along the lines of:
>
> Device Mapper does not support barriers if more than one physical
> device is in use by the LV. If I'm using ext3 on a LV and I call
> fsync() from user space, how is fsync() implemented. Or is it not?
The point of fsync() is for an application to know that a write has been
safely committed, as for example sendmail would do before acknowledging
to the sender that a message has been accepted. The question isn't
whether an application can call fsync() but rather whether it's return
status is lying, making the underlying storage unsuitable for anything
that needs reliability.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the linux-lvm
mailing list