[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > Why require two separate fsync() calls when one
> > > will do?
> >
> >Because it's faster to only do the one. What is the point of spending
> >10% of your disk throughput taking steps to prevent something that
> >never happens?
>
> "never happens" != "can't happen". My impression is that qmail users
> are more interested in the latter claim than in the former. ;-/
Life is full of risks, Craig. On an active mail server, a crash might
cause one out of a billion email messages to be lost (assuming a crash
ten times per year, a 1/30 chance of losing a file in each crash, and
a million messages a day). That's 99.9999999% reliability, and those
estimates are WAY out of line with my real-world experience. My Linux
server never *ever* crashed until it's CPU fan died -- not unless you
count the various times my cheezy colocation site lost power.
Worry about significant risks in your life, like getting hit by a car.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | "Ask not what your country
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | can force other people to
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | do for you..." -Perry M.
