From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9p2k, fsync
From: forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20010208232833.17FDE19B00@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Thu,  8 Feb 2001 22:27:00 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5f397e4e-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>>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....

not at all.  you're assuming that there are no
techniques available that provide the properties you seek (possibly
better than that, but never mind), BUT neither request nor require fsync (or Tsync);
in fact, for which fsync/Tsync would anyway be a no-op.

fsync was a quick non-fix in the wrong place.