[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 09:05:35 -0500 , "Len Budney" writes:
> >
> > Unfortunately, Linux offers few choices there. The BSD fs would be
> > great if it wasn't so immature under Linux;
>
> Using softupdates under *BSD gives you the reliability of sync (somewhat
> more, actually), with nearly the speed of async.
In October of 1999, that wasn't quite true. Softupdates is less likely
than async to produce an inconsistent filesystem, but is still vulnerable
to data loss.
``In particular, if you put a mail queue on a softupdates filesystem,
you can lose mail when the power goes out, just as if you were using
Linux.'' -- Dan Bernstein, <http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=539496358>
>From Dan's other comments in that thread, it appears that the rename()
call returns success before the rename was committed to disk. Dan said
``mail programs'' rely on rename() to tell the truth. A look at the
source code suggests that qmail is not one of them--qmail-queue doesn't
use the rename() call.
If link() is subject to the same complaint as rename(), then qmail probably
_does_ have the same reliability problem on a softupdates filesystem as on
an async filesystem.
Len.
--
Translate the patents into English and you will see that there is
nothing new in the Sperry patent. The only way that Unisys can make
money off this patent is by convincing gullible people to pay them.
-- Dan Bernstein
