Patch to revive tmpfiles
jw at pegasys.ws
Thu Oct 9 09:54:01 EST 2003
Do stay on list.
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:54:44PM +0200, Hans Eric Sandström wrote:
> Do you think there should be something like:
> #ifdef HAVEPROCFS
> Around the patch.
It would have to be discussed. But something like that
could be considered.
It isn't just a matter of whether they have procfs, it also
matters whether /proc is organised the same way and had the
file descriptors. Some /proc filesystems don't have
/proc/self. Others don't have /proc/*/fd but do have
/dev/fd*. Further, there have been discussions on
linux-kernel regarding changing /proc/fd and even getting
rid of or modifying how /proc/self is done.
What would probably be most suitable would be to have
autoconf generate one of two printf format strings so
you could generate the path something vaguely like this:
| #if defined(PROC_SELF_FD) || defined(PROC_PID_FD)
| /* check for missing tempfile */
| #if defined(PROC_SELF_FD)
| sprintf(fnametmp, PROC_SELF_FD, fd);
| #elif defined(PROC_PID_FD)
| sprintf(fnametmp, PROC_PID_FD, getpid(), fd);
> A fdlink( fd, filename) syscall would also have been nice to have. But no such
> beast seems to exists in any OS i use.
And you won't see it happen. This was proposed a few months
ago on lkml and it was rightly shot down on the basis of
> On the other subject (locking):
> What do you think about taking an exclusive lock on the destination file. To
> avoid two different rsyncs overrunning each other. Actually there is no
> locking att all in the code and the copying should preferrably be atomic.
> The exclusive lock would block one of the rsync processes. A nonblocking lock
> would have to handle a write error to the locked file. I looked at the code
> but could'nt really follow how errors where handled so I did'nt try that.
> Then there is a catch 22 in the code when the new file does'nt exist. Is it
> safe to create an empty desitnation file to take the lock on.
I'm not too keen on adding locking. It gets into issues of
making sure locks are released and in some cases filesystem
limitations. We are talking about a corner case that
as far as i can tell doesn't really cause more problems than
that of wasting resources with multiple syncs.
The disconnected tempfile reconnection is only interesting
to me because of the oddness i imagine must be happening
when the tempfile disappears out from under rsync. I'm not
sure if i wouldn't rather just have rsync bomb out at that
point with a good error message such as "Tempfile for %d
missing -- probable rsync collision".
> Hans Eric
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jw schultz" <jw at pegasys.ws>
> To: <rsync at lists.samba.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Patch to revive tmpfiles
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 03:22:04PM +0200, Hans Eric Sandström wrote:
> > This is a patch to fix one annoyance of having rsync processes race:
> > I usually keep our servers synced with the following script, run by cron.
> > #!/bin/sh
> > lockfile -r 2 -l 1000 /tmp/synchome.lock || exit 1
> > rsync -e ssh -avHP --delete zorro01:/home/\* /home >/dev/null
> > rm -f /tmp/synchome.lock
> > --
> > Sometimes my users (including myself) are in a hurry and syncronise files
> and directories in their homes themselves. This bypasses the lock above and
> two or more rsync processes are in a race.
> > What happens is that the competing rsync processes delete each others
> temporary files a lot of network traffic is wasted since rsyncing fails when
> the temp file is deleted.
> > The included patch tries to remedy this situation by reviving the temp file.
> Interesting idea. Very platform dependant though.
> J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
> email address: jw at pegasys.ws
> Remember Cernan and Schmitt
> To unsubscribe or change options:
> Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: jw at pegasys.ws
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
More information about the rsync