on Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 12:16:28PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: >> > Why issue a 'sync' instead of just unmounting and waiting until the >> > thing stops flashing?
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:24:22AM -0900, Ken Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: >> sync blocks, so you can tell from the command line when the job is done. Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So does umount. (I see you said that below, but I wanted to underline > it again; it looks like Rudolfo overlooked it) After "umount" > completes, it's safe to remove the stick. Rodolfo: >> I didn't overlook this, but: >> >> 1) in my experience, some time ago I used to extract the pendrive after >> `umount' completes and the device often got corrupted. When I asked this >> list for help to recover it, someone suggested to apply the `sync' option >> to the mount option: since then I put that option in my fstab, until this >> thread advised not to do so; Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've been using Linux for 10 years, and I've always, always, always > heard that "umount" had a side effect of flushing dirty buffers to disk > and syncing the filesystem. > > > But I did a little research before I replied, and I came up with some > surprising information. [...] Rodolfo: >> 2) I measured the time, and it seems to me that the `sync' command takes a >> little longer than `umount' to stop. Daniel: > I don't know for sure, but this could be because "sync" flushes the > write buffers on all devices, not just the one you're pulling out. Thanks for taking care of the important matter. Then I presume that if I use both issues, i.e. first do `sync' and then `umount', I should feel quite safe: is that right? I did so some times now (with no `sync' option left in my fstab) and nothing bad has happened up to now. Bye Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
