From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Choate To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Cc: hangar18@einstein.ssz.com In-Reply-To: <200102082208.RAA07416@augusta.math.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [9fans] Re: 9p2k, fsync Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:26:03 -0600 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5eba33c8-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 The inclusion of transactions and journaling services would be a great boon to further acceptance of the OS in commercial environments. It should be optional since most folks don't need the performance hit or that level of reliability. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Dan Cross wrote: > 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. >