> I see some cargo-cult potential in fsync-after-every-write here.
Well, we currently effectively have cargo-cult no-fsync, in that application writers who don't consider the matter get the fast-but-risky behaviour.
I think I'd be happy for naive application writers to get safe-and-slow as a default, learning that they can get fast-but-risky over time (as they, hopefully, become aware of when to use the two approaches).
That said, what that would really achieve is an overall impression that "writing files under Linux is slow", so perhaps the current situation is 'best'.
Well, we currently effectively have cargo-cult no-fsync, in that application writers who don't consider the matter get the fast-but-risky behaviour.
I think I'd be happy for naive application writers to get safe-and-slow as a default, learning that they can get fast-but-risky over time (as they, hopefully, become aware of when to use the two approaches).
That said, what that would really achieve is an overall impression that "writing files under Linux is slow", so perhaps the current situation is 'best'.