[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: XFS and journalling filesystems

On Fri, 28 May 1999 10:11:02 -0600, "Jeff Merkey"
<> said:

> NTFS, for example, only posts meta data to the log file for restart,
> and does not post user writes to the journal. This means you can
> lose user data on a restart.

This is expected behaviour. This is the defined Unix semantics. Unix
provides an API which allows the application to request data
synchronisation with the disk if it wants it --- the semantics
explicitly do not guarantee this unless you use fsync/fdatasync or

> If XFS is only writing meta data to the journal, and not user data,
> as you suggest, then you are technically correct that reads do not
> have to be serialized, however, this also means that XFS is not a
> **TRUE** journalling file system because you can lose user data on
> restarts

Of course it is true journaling. It just has different semantics to a
system which journals data synchronously.

> and the benefits it provides for journalling are not much better
> than running "fsck" after a system crash.

That is the whole point, tho. fsck elimination is precisely why most
Unix journaling filesystems were written.

> Surely this is not the case -- this would mean that XFS is no better than



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.202 / U:6.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site