Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Issue 135 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com
on 8 Dec 2010 at 11:23
That is an interesting observation. Admittedly, I don't know why this is
the case. ...seems counter intuitive.
Here's the result of my similar experiment:
% echo "1234" > numbers.txt
getattr[path=/numbers.txt]
mknod[path=/numbers.txt][mode=33204]
getattr[path=/numbers.txt]
open[path=/numbers.txt][flags=32769]
downloading[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5]
flush[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5]
uploading[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5][size=0]
write[path=/numbers.txt]
flush[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5]
uploading[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5][size=5]
release[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5]
% echo "56789ABC" >> numbers.txt
getattr[path=/numbers.txt]
open[path=/numbers.txt][flags=33793]
downloading[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5]
(s3fs_flush called from FUSE)
flush[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5]
uploading[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5][size=5]
(s3fs_write called from FUSE)
write[path=/numbers.txt]
(s3fs_flush called from FUSE)
flush[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5]
uploading[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5][size=14]
(s3fs_release called from FUSE)
release[path=/numbers.txt][fd=5]
So I added some comments above on the second write. s3fs reacts to FUSE's
requests. So here is the sequence from FUSE on the second write:
getattr
open
flush
write
flush
release
s3fs's flush handler does an upload upon every flush. Since there is
two flushes during this file system write, it gets uploaded each time.
I do not know why the code was originally written in this manner. ...is it
right, is it wrong? ...I do not know.
It does seem that the flush after open shouldn't re-upload. My guess at this
point in time is that this is a "big hammer" to account for keeping amazon's
meta data that is associated with the file from getting out of whack.
It certainly seems that this can hurt performance.
Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com
on 17 Dec 2010 at 5:21
I don't know how to respond to this other than "that's the way that it is"
There was recently an issue found with redirections and appends (> and >>) on
some systems that got fixed, maybe the fix has an impact (hopefully positive)
on this issue.
Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com
on 5 Feb 2011 at 1:45
see r322
Original comment by ben.lema...@gmail.com
on 22 Feb 2011 at 9:32
Can the original reporter of this issue give r322 (or later) a try and report
back as to if this either resolves this issue or makes it better? Thanks.
Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com
on 26 Feb 2011 at 6:25
Sacha, last chance to respond before this issue gets closed.
Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com
on 7 Mar 2011 at 7:32
Original comment by dmoore4...@gmail.com
on 9 Mar 2011 at 1:56
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
sascha.a...@gmail.com
on 8 Dec 2010 at 3:38