On 8/31/05, Hifumi Hisashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > michael chang wrote: > > >Surely we don't want this. Look at the papers on Namesys's websites, > >about the atomicaty and the banking example. But that's just my > >personal opinion. Besides, I believe it's more likely that usually > >the power gets lost than the SCSI or IDE cable gets disconnected, > >AFAIK... > > > > > A write() syscall with the O_SYNC flag must ensure that not only > file data block > but also journal (meta-data update) are written to a disk when this > syscall end. > But, current implementation of Reiserfs does not do that. If a system > crashes, > a filesystem recovers from the journal transaction log. But, Reiserfs > may not > recover in some cases. > I checked other filesystems like ext3, jfs, xfs. Those filesystem > write transactions > to a disk everytime write() with the O_SYNC is performed. In those > filesystem, > I have no trouble mentioned above. > > I should say, the Reiserfs would be "un"reliable filesystem..........
That said, AFAIK, Reiser(fs) 3.6 patches are somewhat redundant (although if they solve a "problem", sure, go ahead) since this funcationality should be present in Reiser4 in one form or another -- I don't know if Reiser3.6 is still "supported" per se, anyways. But don't bash on me -- I'm not subscribed to the reiserfs-dev nor linux-fsdevel lists, so don't bash me for saying something I shouldn't say otherwise (I don't see how removing these lists from the replies would help, but if that is requested, let me know). -- ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
