Dmitri Nikulin wrote: > I agree, but if it is practical to implement behaviour similar to > ext3's "data=ordered" for UFS soft updates, then that is certainly a > good measure.
That's easy: Just switch soft-updates off and mount the file system with the "sync" option. Of course it will be much slower then, but that's how UFS works. It's not a journaling file system. For a journaling file system, the situation is different. And of course, without soft-updates, you increase the risk of introducing file-system inconsistencies upon crashes. I agree with the people that argue that the applications need to be fixed. Note that critical applications like MTAs and most editors are already safe; they call fsync() before closing a file and when renaming files. The latter is especially important when a file is updated by creating a temporary copy and then moving it over the old file. If you don't sync, you might lose _both_ files after a crash. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
