Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: close() erros (was: Trojan Horses)
Message-ID: <12291:Oct2605:12:0490@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 26 Oct 90 05:12:04 GMT
References: <1990Oct18.121818.9956@athena.mit.edu> <35111@cup.portal.com> <4335@pkmab.se>
Organization: IR
Lines: 13

In article <4335@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:
> You don't have to store your data for longer than until the next fsync()
> you do

Are you saying that we have to invoke the overhead of fsync() to solve a
problem not related to disk and CPU failures? That for a relatively
simple synchronization problem we have to send mounds of junk over the
network, when otherwise it might never need to traverse the network at
all? That even in a guaranteed failure-free system where the CPU and
disks never crash, we would have to use fsync()? Do you really believe
that EDQUOT should be made as disastrous as EIO? That's what you imply.

---Dan