From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Cross Message-Id: <200102082208.RAA07416@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] 9p2k, fsync In-Reply-To: <20010208062443.1E903199EC@mail.cse.psu.edu> Cc: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:08:00 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5eb2e168-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 In article <20010208062443.1E903199EC@mail.cse.psu.edu> you write: >> The issue is wether I, as a programmer, have a way of saying, ``please >> make sure that this file is committed to stable storage, and not in a >> RAM buffer somewhere.'' Currently, there is no solution to this >> problem. > >This question has been answered. No, there is no solution. It wasn't a question; it was a statement of a problem, which as you say, has no solution. >Other systems claim to have solutions but they are exaggerating. I frankly don't care what other systems do or don't do; the issue is what a system *could* do. >It's an issue for file servers, not operating systems. I talk to a file server using a file system protocol, right? In article <20010208062621.A6F2719A02@mail.cse.psu.edu> you write: >No one here said, ``the file server will take care of it''. The statement was something along the lines of, ``you have to trust that when the file server says it's done writing, it's done.'' (Not an exact quote.) >What we're saying is that the file server must take care of it if >anyone will. Okay, but I have no way to indicate to the file server, ``hey, now would be a good time to take care of it....'' I don't think that the idea of fsync() is bad, even if the implementation doesn't work as advertised. I guess this just isn't that big of a deal for you guys.... - Dan C.