lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromBill Davidsen <>
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29
DateMon, 30 Mar 2009 15:02:44 -0400
Andreas T.Auer wrote:
> On 30.03.2009 02:39 Theodore Tso wrote:
>> All I can do is apologize to all other filesystem developers profusely
>> for ext3's data=ordered semantics; at this point, I very much regret
>> that we made data=ordered the default for ext3. But the application
>> writers vastly outnumber us, and realistically we're not going to be
>> able to easily roll back eight years of application writers being
>> trained that fsync() is not necessary, and actually is detrimental for
>> ext3.

> And still I don't know any reason, why it makes sense to write the
> metadata to non-existing data immediately instead of delaying that, too.
>
Here I have the same question, I don't expect or demand that anything be done in
a particular order unless I force it so, and I expect there to be some corner
case where the data is written and the metadata doesn't reflect that in the
event of a failure, but I can't see that it ever a good idea to have the
metadata reflect the future and describe what things will look like if
everything goes as planned. I have had enough of that BS from financial planners
and politicians, metadata shouldn't try to predict the future just to save a ms
here or there. It's also necessary to have the metadata match reality after
fsync(), of course, or even the well behaved applications mentioned in this
thread haven't a hope of staying consistent.

Feel free to clarify why clairvoyant metadata is ever a good thing...

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-30 21:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2010