Re: Appropriate use of sync() from user space?

[david]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, David Rientjes wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > > Quick summary: We have a vendor who is claiming that it is required
> > > for their userspace program to execute sync(), and I am looking for
> > > some sort of authoritative document or person to refer them to that
> > > will state that this belief is incorrect and/or that this
> > > architecture is not acceptable in a Unix environment.
> > >
> > > I checked Google and the archives and didn't find anything
> > > appropriate. Unfortunately, the word "sync" is very popular. :-)
> > >
> > > We have users who have been experiencing 3 to 5 minutes "freezes"
> > > for a particular command which often times out and fails. I traced
> > > this down from the commercial userspace program (IBM Rational
> > > ClearCase / "cleartool mkview") that they are executing to a backend
> > > "view_server" process (also IBM Rational ClearCase) that is running
> > > sync() as a means of synchronizing their database to disk before
> > > proceeding, and VMware using a "large" memory mapped file to back
> > > it's virtual "RAM". The sync() for my computer normally completes in
> > > 7 to 8 seconds. The sync() for some of our users is taking 5 minutes
> > > or longer. This can be demonstrated simply by typing "time sync"
> > > from the command line at intervals. The time itself is relevant
> > > because if it finishes before a timeout elapses - the operation
> > > works (albeit slowly). If the timeout elapses, the operation fails.
> > >
> > > The vendor stated that sync() is integral to their synchronization
> > > process to ensure all files reach disk before they are accessed, and
> > > that this is not a defect in their product. We have a work around -
> > > run "sync" before calling their command, and this generally avoids
> > > the failures.
> > >
> > > I think the use of sync() in this regard is a hack. According to
> > > POSIX.1 and the Linux man pages, it seems clear to me that sync()
> > > does not guarantee data integrity (bytes guaranteed to have reached
> > > disk) - and it also seems clear that forcing all system data to
> > > flush out in response to a minor command is over kill. Like cutting
> > > down the forest to harvest fruit from a single tree.
> >   Actually the manpage is wrong. Linux waits for all data to be safely on
> > disk before sync returns. So calling sync is a correct way (although
> > inefficient at times) to achieve data integrity. What kernel version are
> > you using? Different kernel versions are differently efficient when doing
> > sync(2) and quite some effort went to make sync less prone to livelocks in
> > recent kernels...
>
> Let's make sure to keep Michael Kerrisk cc'd if anything needs to be
> clarified in the manpages.

also, you may want to check if they are really doing a 'sync' (syncing the 
entire filesystem) or just a 'fsync' (syncing the file). Depending on the 
technical depth of the people you are talking to, they may say sync when 
what is actually happening is a fsync.

there is little dispute that fsync is correct, but not a complete answer 
to the issue. take a look at the LWN article on the subject at 
http://lwn.net/Articles/457667

Ext3 has a pathalogical condition where a sync to one file can force a 
complete journal flush, which isn't as bad as a sync of the entire 
filesystem, but can still take a long time if there is other ongoing write 
activity on the system (I knwo I've read about fsyncs taking longer than 
30 seconds, and I think I've heard of them taking minutes). As far as I 
know, Ext3 is the only filesystem to suffer this problem, but 
unfortunantly it's the default filesystem on most linux distros.

David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/