Subject: Re: df require_sync (fwd)

From: [email-masked] (Erick Branderhorst)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:41:00 +0100

Jim Meyering (>) responded on my question (> |).

> | Another bug which is reported agains the fileutils package in de
> | debian bug lists is the fact that df doesn't require sync in df.
> |
> | A solution is to set static int require_sync to non-zero.  I was
> | wondering if this could be solved which some #ifdef construction
> | so that it is done automatically, not needing a manual patch.
> 
> Some would argue whether it's a bug.  On some file systems (e.g., a
> couple common Linux ones) sync is effectively a slow no-op because it
> is not required to get up to date fsusage.  On those systems, always
> doing sync is undesirable.  On others, the big slowdown induced by
> calling sync by default does not justify the slightly more up to date
> information that results.
> 
> If Debian folks are sure they want the default to be different, I'll
> probably accomodate them with something like #ifdef __DEBIAN or whatever
> symbol you use.

Is this a proper solution?  Can we Debian folks live with this or???

Erick

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 14:02:30 -0500 (CDT)

> > | debian bug lists is the fact that df doesn't require sync in df.

This discussion is moot.

>From fileutils-3.13/NEWS:
* df no longer invokes the sync system call by default.  You can use the
  --sync option to make df invoke sync before getting file system sizes.

fileutils 3.13 is already compiled for Debian.

Guy

---

From: [email-masked] (joost witteveen)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:23:03 +0200 (MET DST)

> Is this a proper solution?  Can we Debian folks live with this or???

Well, it looks like Jim removed sync from df altogether, as this
was in gnu-announce some time ago:

>>>Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 18:40:35 -0500
>>>From: Jim Meyering <[email-masked]>
>>>Sender: [email-masked]
>>>Resent-From: [email-masked]
>>>Status: RO
>>>
>>>A new release of the GNU file management utilities is available at
>>>
>>>  ftp://ftp.gnu.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/fileutils-3.13.tar.gz.
>>>
>>>This is mostly a bug-fix release.
>>>
>>>The programs in the fileutils are:
>>>
>>>chgrp chmod chown cp dd df dir dircolors du install ln ls mkdir
>>>mkfifo mknod mv rm rmdir touch sync vdir
>>>
>>>Most of these programs have significant advantages over their Unix
>>>counterparts, such as greater speed, additional options, and fewer
>>>arbitrary limits.
>>>
>>>Changes in release 3.13
[...]
>>>  --sync option to make df invoke sync before getting file system sizes.
[...]

-- 
joost witteveen
            [email-masked]
          [email-masked]
--
Use Debian/GNU Linux!

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 24 Jul 1996 23:38:00 +0200

> Is this a proper solution?  Can we Debian folks live with this or???

I don't quite understand this.

He seems to say that a sync is often bad, especially on Linux (and indeed,  
the latest fileutils seems to claim it doesn't sync by default, if I  
understand the announcement), but then he talks about different defaults  
for Debian.

Is it possible that he thinks we _want_ sync?!

MfG Kai

---

From: [email-masked] (Erick Branderhorst)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:22:19 +0100

> Is it possible that he thinks we _want_ sync?!

I'm afraid that I caused the confussion that we _want_ sync.
Sorry, another bug solved.