News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Non-Posix File Systems by jacobsenscott on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @06:18PM (#24414224)
Isn't this true of any atomic operation in the event of a crash? You'll either see the old data or the new data when the system comes back up.
Re:Non-Posix File Systems by wahern on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @06:23PM (#24414272)
Yes. But traditionally Unix filesystems provided stronger consistency guarantees than required by POSIX, and applications have come to rely on them. Actually, in the event of a crash I think POSIX specifies implementation-defined behavior even for fsync.
Re:Non-Posix File Systems by formerly_proven on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @06:26PM (#24414303)
Making fsync a no-op and not having any durability at all is perfectly POSIX compliant. POSIX only concerns itself with the visibility of I/O in the live system (e.g. a process either sees a write fully realized, or not at all - this didn't use to be true for larger writes until fairly recently, btw.). POSIX specifies nothing about what happens when a system is restarted or looses power.
Re:Non-Posix File Systems by ori_b on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @11:31PM (#24416741)
The alternative would not allow for a posix-compliant implementation ramfs.