[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [linux-lvm] fsync() and LVM



Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Marco Colombo wrote:

It seems to me that in my setup, disabling the caches on the disks does
bring data to the platters, and that noone is "lying" about fsync.

Now I'm _really_ confused.

That's been my claim all along - that the broken fsync only affects
on disk cache.  LVM itself does not reorder writes in any way - it just
fails to pass along the write barrier.  fsync() does *start* writing
the dirty buffers (implemented in the fs code). It just doesn't wait for the writes to finish getting to the platters. Apparently,
it does wait for the write to get to the drive (but I'm not certain).

Given that fsync() is supposed to return the status of the completion of the physical write, that sounds broken to me. Do the LVM's in question here have more than one underlying device, and does it matter?

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]