On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Ted Ts'o <[email protected]> wrote: > Lots of users have complained about the desktop performance problem, > but the reality is we can't really solve that without also taking away > the magic that made (c) happen. Whether you solve it by using > data=writeback and stick with ext3, or switch to ext4, or switch to > XFS, or switch to btrfs --- all of these will solve the desktop > performance problem, but they also leave you vulnerable to file loss > in the case of system crashes and applications that don't use > fsync()/fdatasync().
Are you saying you can't guarantee the atomic property without the durable property? I don't think that's right. I also don't understand why you can't solve the old contents issue without negatively affecting performance. > Hence the fact that all file system developers, whether they were > btrfs developers or XFS developers or ext4 developers, made the joke > at the file system developers summit two years ago, that what the > application programmers really wanted was O_PONY, with the magic pixie > dust. Unfortunately: I think a lot would be happy with O_ATOMIC. Olaf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
