From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:32:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:31:56 -0400 Received: from krusty.E-Technik.Uni-Dortmund.DE ([129.217.163.1]:14347 "HELO krusty.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:31:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:31:53 +0200 From: Matthias Andree To: David Weinehall Cc: Daniel Phillips , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: intermediate summary of ext3-2.4-0.9.4 thread Message-ID: <20010803203153.G31468@emma1.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Weinehall , Daniel Phillips , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3B5FC7FB.D5AF0932@zip.com.au> <20010801170230.B7053@redhat.com> <20010802110341.B17927@emma1.emma.line.org> <01080219261601.00440@starship> <20010802193750.B12425@emma1.emma.line.org> <20010803105029.I6387@khan.acc.umu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010803105029.I6387@khan.acc.umu.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.19i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 03 Aug 2001, David Weinehall wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 07:37:50PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > > Still, some people object to a dirsync mount option. But this has been > > the actual reason for the thread - MTA authors are refusing to pamper > > Linux and use chattr +S instead which gives unnecessary (premature) sync > > operations on write() - but MTAs know how to fsync(). > > So what you mean is that MTA authors refuse to pamper Linux through use > of fsync of the directory, but can accept to "pamper" Linux through use > of chattr +S?! This seem ridiculous. It seems equally ridiculous to > demand that Linux should pamper for MTA authors that can't implement > fsync on the directory instead of writing BSD-specific code. It's a maintenance issue. You effectively start wrapping up all relevant syscalls and have system-specific interfaces. One wants the directory fsync()ed, the other offers a special other trick to get the data flushed... what useful is portability then if systems are so different? > To me this seems mostly like a way of saying "Hey, we've finally found > a way to make Linux look really bad compared to BSD-systems; let's No wonder if the application chooses fully-synchronous operation on Linux. -- Matthias Andree