Re: fsync in glib/gio

[Stef Walter <stef-list memberwebs com>]

Mark Mielke wrote:
> I think fsync() is absolutely necessary to be explicit in this
> situation, because the application needs to assert that all data is
> written *before* using rename to perform the atomic-change-in-place
> effect. I think that anybody who thinks fsync() is unnecessary is
> failing to see the principle that fsync() exists solely for the purpose
> of guaranteeing this state, and that if you think fsync() should be
> unnecessary here, you should also think fsync() should be unnecessary
> anywhere else. Why have an fsync() at all? Why shouldn't all operations
> be synchronous by nature? Change the specification to force all I/O
> operations to be ordered that way no application developer will ever
> have to be surprised or ever call a synchronization primitive again. Right?

fsync() was really broken on ext3. Now, all of a sudden it's "teh
awesome!!!! FTW!!!"

There's a reason people haven't been using it. It could take an obscene
amount of time to complete depending on what you happened to be doing in
elsewhere in the (multi-tasking, no less) OS.

Stef