Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: Is ReiserFS really a journaling file system, or is it really just a synchronous-metadata file system like BSD FFS? | Date | 28 Mar 2000 18:00:33 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <20000329012048.D18134@redhat.com> By author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:47:14PM -0800, ncm@nospam.cantrip.org wrote: > > > I hope my impression is wrong, and that in fact all these file systems > > provide similar recovery semantics. Can someone answer authoritatively? > > They all do. You cannot do data journaling unless the applications > give the operating system hints about their transactions. Existing > applications typically use fsync() and O_SYNC when they want to > tell the OS about data write ordering constraints, and journaling > filesystems do honour those hints properly. >
Okay, I do have a question. There are a *number* of applications in which it is far better to lose a file than having a file which looks correct but contains bad data. kernel.org is such as application. What would be the proper kind of filesystem to run?
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |