Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 17 Jun 1996 01:44:59 -0400 (EDT) | From | Nick Simicich <> | Subject | Re: 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 Simicich-njs@scifi.maid.com-(last choice) nick_simicich@bocaraton.ibm.com http://scifi.maid.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!
|  |