[squeak-dev] new VM appears not to be flushing
pbpublist at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 08:06:59 UTC 2020
Has anything changed in the VM related to process scheduling? Assuming
you're doing your data store writes and transaction logging via processes,
that would be one of the first places I'd look.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:57 PM Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, okay, #sync does what I *thought* #flush did. I would never discover
> some of these things if you weren't so generous with your expertise,
> thanks. I think #sync is what I want since I want it to be safe from
> sudden power outage, not just a process kill.
> I did try changing it to #sync, but it still failed the same. I then went
> back and tried my #reopen a second time, this time it failed in the same
> way too! So either it got lucky before, or I err'd in my testing somehow,
> but I'm actually glad that it seems to be failing consistently now.
> There's definitely something different with the new VM, but it's not
> flush. Sorry for the false alarm. I'll have to keep digging.
> - Chris
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 4:39 PM Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu>
>> Hi Chris,
>> #flush calls fflush(), #sync calls #fflush() and then #fsync().
>> The former does not write data to disk, the latter does. And the latter
>> obviously a lot slower. If that explanation is not clear, this might be
>> better: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2340641
>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, Chris Muller wrote:
>> > The test case proves that it does.
>> Can you give us a small snippet which reproduces the bug and can be
>> executed in a Trunk image?
>> > The comment of the method is,
>> > "When writing, flush the current buffer out to disk."
>> That comment is wrong. That might have been true 21 years ago, even
>> though that's not very likely either.
>> The comment on StandardFileStream >> #flush is correct, but could be more
>> verbose: "Flush pending changes".
>> > I know what filesystem I deploy to, but Squeak appears to be silently
>> ignoring this (rather important) expectation about #flush, that its own
>> > comment presents.
>> > - Chris
>> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 6:15 PM Levente Uzonyi <leves at caesar.elte.hu>
>> > Hi Chris,
>> > Do you expect #flush to write the changes to disk?
>> > Levente
>> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020, Chris Muller wrote:
>> > > Magma has been stable in 5.2 for a long time under an older VM,
>> all tests pass. But by changing ONLY the VM (not the image) to the
>> > new release-candidate, it fails the forward-recovery test. This
>> test tests the scenario of a
>> > > server failure during mid-write. Unless I change
>> StandardFileStream>>#flush as in Files-cmm.182, the recovery data which
>> > relies on #flush to ensure is preserved is, in fact, not
>> preserved. It appears to be a breakage
>> > > of the contract which causes the test to fail. This
>> functionality is important to avoid corrupting databases.
>> > > I saw a discussion on the Cuis list in which someone was
>> asserting that flush is no longer necessary(!!), and made a vague reference
>> > to a "thread on squeak-dev" which I never found.
>> > >
>> > > I hope this is just an oversight, otherwise I'll have to rely
>> something like Files-cmm.182, which is half the speed of the old
>> > #flush.
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > > Chris
>> > >
>> > >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev