[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.2.0 wishlist
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:

> Stephen C. Tweedie:
> > Ordered writes have major problems. You want a list? OK: you get bad
> > cyclic dependencies (especially between inode blocks and bitmaps,
> > since multiple inodes get stored in a single block); if your data is
> I think (but could be wrong) that bitmaps can be recovered by e2fsck
> from the remaining information, so bitmaps could still be completely
> asynchronous as long as any other writes are ordered.
> > always being written, you NEVER get to update the inode; and Unixware
> Hmm, this looks like a real problem...
> > have got a broad-ranging patent for ordered filesystem writes anyway.
> > <sigh>.

Interesting, since IBM's VM/CMS has been using ordered filesystem writes
to do atomic metadata updates since, oh, 1967 or so? Not in a Unix style
filesystem, but close enough, I'd bet, to make Unixware's patent not as
broad as they think. (and for the bitmap type info as well).

Nick choice) -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.041 / U:1.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site