similar to: Quick fsync question

Can someone explain to me what is happening here: ~ $ touch foo ~ $ ln foo bar ~ $ ls foo bar bar foo ~ $ mv foo bar ~ $ ls foo bar bar foo I try to move a file over a hard linked copy of itself and the move fails, but there is no error. Is this the intended behavior? -- Ben Escoto

Hi, can someone tell me whether applications can expect the write requests they make to be executed in order? For instance, suppose an application requests that a file be deleted, and then that another file be moved to an unrelated place. Will these events always happen in that order? Or to put it another way, if something unexpected happens in the meantime (say the computer crashes), is it

Hello, We found that fsync and fdatasync syscalls sometimes don't sync data in an ext3 file system under the following conditions. 1. Kernel version is 2.6.6 or later (including 2.6.8.1 and 2.6.9-rc2). 2. Ext3's journalling mode is "data=journal". 3. Create a file (whose size is 1Mbytes) and execute umount/mount. 4. lseek to a random position within the file, write 8192 bytes

Hi all, I'm using dovecot since a few months and it works great. But a few days ago some coworkers mentioned that they got errormessages in their Mailapp. I searched in the logfiles and found this: Sep 14 12:07:35 Mailserv dovecot: IMAP(eckhard-ma-domain-com): fsync(/home/eckhard-ma-domain-com/mails/.INBOX.0002-Druckangebote von Druckereien.0002-schmerk

Hi, I have a question on fsync() and ext3's journaling modes. Assume that I call fsync(fd) on a file. If that file is in 'data=journal' mode, would the fsync() return once the data gets safely into the journal ? On the other hand, if that file is in 'data=writeback' mode, would the fsync() return only when the data gets safely into its actual location ? Any help is

I have been trying to figure out whether I can enable write caching on my PATA hard drives (WD3200JB) and have fsync not return until data is safely on the platters. I am also running software raid. This is currently on FC5 (though soon to be FC6) with a 2.6.18 kernel. >From snippets I have found on the net, it looks like write barriers are pushed down through software raid when using raid 1.

------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/ext3/fsync.c:50! invalid operand: 0000 [#1] CPU: 0 EIP: 0060:[<b0187d38>] Not tainted VLI EFLAGS: 00010296 (2.6.13.1) EIP is at ext3_sync_file+0x58/0xf0 eax: 00000068 ebx: bf4a479c ecx: b03cffac edx: b03cffac esi: b0398cfc edi: b2b8f1c8 ebp: c13bcf60 esp: c13bcf18 ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068 Process aptitude

There's a big thread about filesystems on postfix-users@postfix.org Could you shed some light on that issue? ----- Forwarded message from Wietse Venema <wietse@porcupine.org> ----- From: wietse@porcupine.org (Wietse Venema) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 07:53:26 -0500 (EST) To: Lawrence Greenfield <leg+@andrew.cmu.edu> Cc: Wietse Venema <wietse@porcupine.org>,

Linux kernel (as of 2.6.15.4) has the following performance bug: Syncing (fsync() or fdatasync()) files with zero links (deleted files) in not no-op, as it should be. See details, a test C program, and the rationale in the URL below: http://b2e.ex-code.com/index.php/soft/2006/02/24/linux_performance_bug_zero_links_fsync In the article with the URL above it is also explained how to make much

My application always needs to sync file data after writing. I don't want anything handing around in the kernel buffers. I am wondering what is the best method to accomplish this. 1. Do I use EXT2 and use fdatasync() or fsync()? 2. Do I use EXT2 and mount with the "sync" option? 3. Do I use EXT2 and use the O_DIRECT flag on open()? 4. Do I use EXT3 in full journaled mode,

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:03:00 +0300, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/09/2010 05:56 PM, Ben Gamari wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:08:58 +0200, Andi Kleen<andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > > > >> Ben Gamari<bgamari.foss@gmail.com> writes: > >> ext4/XFS/JFS/btrfs should be better in this regard > >> > >> >

Can someone suggest anything that will help with the following ext3 performance problem? (It's a Berkeley db issue at bottom, but the ext3 part is worth looking at, I think.) First, two paragraphs of background: A Bayesian spam filter called bogofilter uses Berkeley db to maintain two database files of identical format: one containing words found in spam email and for each word the number

Hi all, We are building a new system which is going to use ext3 FS. We would like to know more about the behavior of ext3 in the case of failure. But before I procede, I would like to share more information about our future system. * Our application always does an fsync on files * When symbolic links (more specifically fast symlink) are created, the host directory is also fsync'ed. * Our

Does Fsync of a file on a ext3 fs mounted with "ordered" option(the default) result in flush the dirty data buffers in the fs that correspond to previous transactions. In other words, if I keep writing to file1 (lots of data), log something to file2, keep fsyncing file2 after every write - does this mean file1 data would be committed by fsyncs on file2. Please copy me on your replies

The latest ext3 patches against linux-2.4.7 and linux-2.4.7-ac3 are at http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ Changes since 0.9.4 include: - Fixed a bug which could trip an assertion failure when using small journals under heavy load in full data journalling mode. - A patch from Ted plus the latest version of e2fsprogs plus the stomping of various ext3 bugs gives us preliminary

Hi, I am thinking about a non-standard usage of rsync (at least not mentioned in the man file) I want to synchronized my collegues home directories(trees) each night AND store rsync's internal updating commands (reversed) to be able to restore the state of a directory the day before. This would require - saving the internal updating commands in a separate directory - reversing these commands

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > How about 'strace mkfs.ext2 ..' and see if any system calls are > returning errors. That would show you whether nbd-client is throwing > errors away, or whether mkfs is getting the errors and ignoring them > (seems pretty unlikely, but you never know). > > After that, it'd be down

An update to the ext3 filesystem for 2.4 kernels is available at http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ The diffs are against linux-2.4.7 and linux-2.4.6-ac5. The changelog is there. One rarely-occurring but oopsable bug was fixed and several quite significant performance enhancements have been made. These are in addition to the performance fixes which went into 0.9.3. Ted has put out a

Hi all, Recently there''s been discussion [1] in the Linux community about how filesystems should deal with rename(2), particularly in the case of a crash. ext4 was found to truncate files after a crash, that had been written with open("foo.tmp"), write(), close() and then rename("foo.tmp", "foo"). This is because ext4 uses delayed allocation and may not

In order to improve the performance of fsync, we use the outstanding ordered extents to avoid looking up the checksum from the csum tree. But we didn''t filter out the ordered extents whose csum is still being calculated, when we got those ordered extents, we had to wait for the csum calculation. It made the performance dropped down suddenly. (On my box, it drop down from 56MB/s to