[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectFwd: Re: OT: svscan and the hard disk
    Any thoughts on what DJB thinks of the Linux FS?

    Sorry for him, each day I convince myself of not using Qmail ever!

    Saludos... :-)

    ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

    Subject: Re: OT: svscan and the hard disk
    Date: 30 Nov 2001 02:05:35 -0000
    From: "D. J. Bernstein" <>

    Pavel Kankovsky writes:
    > all my attempts to find any piece of standard/specification/documentation
    > saying that fs metadata are to be updated synchronously have failed so far


    The guarantees provided by FFS make it reasonably easy for mail-handling
    software to perform reliable disk transactions. The speed is adequate
    for most sites.

    The Linux filesystem designers, ignorant of the demands of critical
    applications, screwed this up in two ways:

    * They broke compatibility, by failing to provide the FFS system
    calls with the FFS guarantees.

    They wanted an asynchronous rename(), for example. They should have
    added an asyncrename() system call. Instead they foolishly changed
    the semantics of rename(), breaking mail-handling programs.

    Of course, the incompatibility isn't obvious to people who don't
    realize that some programs rely on rename() being synchronous.

    * They didn't provide any way to perform reliable transactions, other
    than syncing the whole filesystem (with, e.g., a directory fsync).

    Even sync mode is worrisome. Has anyone verified that blocks are
    written to disk in the correct order? This is not rocket science,
    but it does require a certain level of care with every operation.

    Supposedly there's a faster transaction mechanism now, but I don't
    trust it. Do the people writing the filesystem code understand that
    there _is_ a correct order for block writes?

    The situation since then has become even worse. Filesystem reliability
    has gone down the tubes: users are regularly suffering data corruption,
    even when there _isn't_ a crash. There are at least four different
    filesystem transaction interfaces.

    I'm reorganizing most of my create-one-file programs to use a generic
    atomicwrite tool, so that all the stupid portability issues are isolated
    inside one program. Meanwhile, qmail 2 uses its own internal filesystem
    for the queue.



    Porqué usar una base de datos relacional cualquiera,
    si podés usar PostgreSQL?
    Martín Marqués |
    Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica
    Universidad Nacional
    del Litoral
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.030 / U:8.728 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site