[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Ext3 vs Reiserfs benchmarks
On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 15:13, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:

> > 1) that newly grown file is someone's inbox, and the old contents of the
> > new block include someone else's private message.
> >
> > 2) That newly grown file is a control file for the application, and the
> > application expects it to contain valid data within (think sendmail).
> In a correctly-written application, neither of these things can
> happen. (See my earlier message today on fsync() and MTAs.) To get a
> file onto disk reliably, the application must 1) flush the data, and
> then 2) flush a "validity" indicator. This could be a sequence like:
> create temp file
> flush data to temp file
> rename temp file
> flush rename operation

Yes, most mtas do this for queue files, I'm not sure how many do it for
the actual spool file. mail server authors are more than welcome to
recommend the best safety/performance combo for their product, and to
ask the FS guys which combinations are safe.


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 13:27    [W:0.158 / U:11.172 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site