Followup to: <20000329012048.D18134@redhat.com>
By author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 08:47:14PM -0800, ncm@nospam.cantrip.org wrote:
>
> > I hope my impression is wrong, and that in fact all these file systems
> > provide similar recovery semantics. Can someone answer authoritatively?
>
> They all do. You cannot do data journaling unless the applications
> give the operating system hints about their transactions. Existing
> applications typically use fsync() and O_SYNC when they want to
> tell the OS about data write ordering constraints, and journaling
> filesystems do honour those hints properly.
>
Okay, I do have a question. There are a *number* of applications in
which it is far better to lose a file than having a file which looks
correct but contains bad data. kernel.org is such as application.
What would be the proper kind of filesystem to run?
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:23 EST