4 ms·
> No filesystems provide atomic syncing of data. Yes everyone in the discussion agrees on this fact > ...but it is not atomic, merely ordered. You've switched
by aidenn0 3y ago
> No filesystems provide atomic syncing of data.
Yes everyone in the discussion agrees on this fact
> ...but it is not atomic, merely ordered. You've switched from talking about one to talking about the other and they are not the same
If the operations we are talking about are ordered, then this provides the atomicity that TFA is asking for. Properly ordering operations is a very common way of making a series of steps atomic.
- throwaway09223 3y ago> "If the operations we are talking about are ordered, then this provides the atomicity that TFA is asking for." No, it doesn't. I think we're reaching the heart of the disagreement here - around what "atomic" means. Atomic means indivisible. It means that other things cannot happen at the same time - that the individual (possibly ordered) steps of an operation cannot be observed while in progress. This is why it's absolutely nonsense to talk about atomicity across a crash. The fundamental design of unix files and memory preclude this. It can't be done.
- aidenn0 3y agoFrom another fork in this thread: > ...the operation we wish to be atomic is 'replacing the mapping path A->data X with path A->data Y'. The ordering makes this operation atomic! The fact that it might leave another file around (if a crash happens) is okay.
- throwaway09223 3y agoWhat is it atomic with respect to?