3 ms·
You stopped one iteration short. You assume you can, and will, know that your OS and your disks do not lie to you. Yes, persisting data in a consistent and du
by bborud 10y ago
You stopped one iteration short. You assume you can, and will, know that your OS and your disks do not lie to you.
Yes, persisting data in a consistent and durable manner is hard. It is damn hard. It was hard 20 years ago when systems required to store obscene amounts of data started to become more common and it is hard today.
(This reminds me of a discussion a couple of years ago on how to kill processes. There are two schools of thought. One is that you should go through the SIGTERM - wait - SIGKILL dance, because that's "being nice". The other is that you always send SIGKILL immediately and instead engineer systems that can deal with it)
- takeda 10y agoYes it does lie especially with fsync() because that call's purpose was to flush all caches to disk, which is an expensive operation. Since then NCQ/TCQ were added to disks and also systems like Linux implemented write barriers to enable more control[1]. [1] https://monolight.cc/2011/06/barriers-caches-filesystems/ https://monolight.cc/2011/06/barriers-caches-filesystems/