Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Appearantly you mixed something up here. FFS never did journaling and
> neither does softupdates.
Indeed. :( Apparently, I misread the following about two years ago,
and never looked back:
qmail's queue (except for bounce message contents) is crashproof if
the filesystem guarantees that single-byte writes are atomic and that
directory operations are synchronous. These guarantees are provided by
the BSD FFS and its derivatives, and by typical journaling filesystems.
I'll call you back when I learn to read,
Len.
--
When the OS already provides a simple, widely used, thoroughly tested
mechanism, it makes no sense to give every program a half-assed
imitation of the same mechanism.
-- Dan Bernstein
- Re: Journalling and email loss Len Budney
- Re: Journalling and email loss Len Budney
- Re: Journalling and email loss Len Budney
- FFS with softupdates (Re: Journalling and email loss) Magnus Bodin
- Re: qmail on FFS with softupdates Len Budney
- Re: qmail on FFS with softupdates Andre Oppermann
- Re: qmail on FFS with softupdates Len Budney
- Re: qmail on FFS with softupdates cmikk
- Re: qmail on FFS with softupdates Andre Oppermann
- Re: qmail on FFS with softupdates Jeff Hayward
- Re: Journalling and email loss Len Budney
- Re: Journalling and email loss Anthony DeBoer
- Re: Journalling and email loss Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: Journalling and email loss Len Budney
- Re: Journalling and email loss Pavel Kankovsky
- Re: Egg on my face Dave Sill
- Re: Egg on my face Sam
- Re: OT: fsync semantics (was Re: Linux kernel ....) David Dyer-Bennet
- Re: OT: fsync semantics (was Re: Linux kernel ....) Bruno Wolff III
- Re: OT: fsync semantics (was Re: Linux kernel ....) Andre Oppermann
- Re: OT: fsync semantics (was Re: Linux kernel ....) David Dyer-Bennet
