Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] Issuing the 'sync' command more than once (and a tangent on how not to run a high-tech company)



On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:59:44PM -0400, MBR wrote:
> On 6/12/2012 11:22 PM, Jack Coats wrote:
> >In old SunOS days, we could issue the 'sync' command, twice, to ensure
> >all system
> >buffers had been written to disk.  You could experiment to see if
> >issuing it occasionally
> >in your script helps.  Or issue it outside the script, even in a chron
> >might help.
> 
> Actually, calling 'sync' multiple times from a script really won't
> help.  To the best of my knowledge, no Unix kernel has ever
> contained code that counts the number of times sync() (the system
> call that the 'sync' command issues) has been called.  

The reason I was taught to do this differs from what you put forth,
and regardless it's certainly true that no modern Unix should ever
require a user to run sync manually, except possibly in very rare
circumstances.

I don't claim to know the veracity of this, but I was taught (by a
college professor who taught Unix system adminsistration as a course,
for whatever that's worth) that the reason to sync twice (not three
times) is that, as you say, the first call to sync schedules the
kernel to sync the buffers, but does not necessarily complete before
the system call returns; however (as I was told) a SUBSEQUENT call to
the sync() system call would block until any previously scheduled sync
had completed.  Thus, the completion of the SECOND sync command
guarantees that the FIRST sync completed flushing the buffers to disk.

Now, I certainly have not spent the time to look at the code to any
antiquated Unix kernels to confirm whether this was ever actually true,
anywhere.  And I don't intend to.  But it's at least plausible that it
was true at one point in some popular Unix.  As you yourself said, for
quite a long while now on Linux (since August of 1995), sync() actually
does wait until the buffers are flushed.  But even that is mostly
irrelevant as the kernel forces the buffers to be flushed periodically
and flushes them prior to system shutdown (assuming it can, of
course).

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.




BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org