Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Dec 1998 10:34:12 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: scary ext2 filesystem question |
| |
On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > the overhead was below 5% *in initial implementation*. Overhead compared > > to async variant, that is. It can be done for Linux implementation but > > we'll have to clean the VFS stuff up before. > > Stephen is doing full journalling. > > > are not independent. If we want to guarantee that on-disk copy is > > consistent at any moment we must submit these changes in _some_ order. The > > No order provides total consistency without a journalling log as far as I can > tell. Please provide an ordering example for extending a file that does not > either expose unwritten blocks to the user (security failure) or potentially > have to go and clean a block up afterwards > > Alan
Erm... What I really wonder is how much would we lose on the following policy: Request 1: <write new data block>, depends on <> Request 2: <write new indirect block> or <add a pointer to existing one>, depends on <1> Request 3: <update inode block>, depends on <2>. In the worst case it will give us lost block, not attached to anything. BFD. With the current ext2 + bdflush we can get _any_ order at all, AFAI can see. Al
- 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/
| |