Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:42:15 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does UFS2 send BIO_FLUSH to GEOM when update metadata (with softupdates)? Message-ID: <jals5e$96f$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20111123194444.GE50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <1957615267.20111123230026@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20111123194444.GE50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23.11.2011. 20:44, Kostik Belousov wrote: > The only requirement of the SU is that writes reported as done by disk > driver are indeed safely landed in the involatile storage. Well, yes, that was the idea, and it works surprisingly well even though hardware today lies about it. Some time ago I've written a patch as an learning excercise which issues a BIO_FLUSH when it thinks SU needs it - it may or may not be correct so I didn't even try to commit it: http://people.freebsd.org/~ivoras/diffs/fsync_flush.patch Of course, reviews are welcome :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?jals5e$96f$1>