On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 02:10:47PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
Well, imagine a hypothetical broken system in which two simultaneous calls
to mkdir, on some hypothetical broken filesystem, can each think that it
"succeeded". After all, at the end of the operation, the directory has
been
hi!
i can never really tell if this alias is for discussions concerning
development OF the FreeBSD OS or development ON the FreeBSD OS (or
both), but I figure i'll risk the wrath of the anti-social and ask a
coupla programming questions :-)
is mkdir(3) guaranteed to be atomic? Thus
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
:
is mkdir(3) guaranteed to be atomic?
Yes.
Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case
(NFS being my main concern )
No.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ha
is mkdir(3) guaranteed to be atomic?
Yes.
Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case
(NFS being my main concern )
No.
Yes. NFS doesn't guarantee atomicity, because it can't. If the mkdir
call returns, you have no guarantee that the remote directory
-
From: Nate Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case
(NFS being my main concern )
No.
Yes. NFS doesn't guarantee atomicity, because it can't. If the
mkdir
call returns, you have no guarantee
Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case
(NFS being my main concern )
No.
Yes. NFS doesn't guarantee atomicity, because it can't. If the
mkdir
call returns, you have no guarantee that the remote directory has
been
created (caching, errors,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
:
is mkdir(3) guaranteed to be atomic?
Yes.
Um. mkdir(2) is atomic. Note that mkdir(1) with the -p argument is
*not* atomic.
Are there filesystem type cases where this might not be the case
(NFS being my main concern
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Smith writes:
How would it *not* be atomic?
Well, imagine a hypothetical broken system in which two simultaneous calls
to mkdir, on some hypothetical broken filesystem, can each think that it
"succeeded". After all, at the end of the operation, the directory
I can handle it if there is a case where both fail, but is
there a
case where both can SUCCEED ??
What do you mean 'both succeed'?
My understanding is that, on non-broken filesystems, calls to
mkdir(2) either succeed by creating a new directory, or fail and return
EEXIST
I can handle it if there is a case where both fail, but is
there a
case where both can SUCCEED ??
What do you mean 'both succeed'?
My understanding is that, on non-broken filesystems, calls to
mkdir(2) either succeed by creating a new directory, or fail and return
EEXIST
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Smith writes:
How would it *not* be atomic?
Well, imagine a hypothetical broken system in which two simultaneous calls
to mkdir, on some hypothetical broken filesystem, can each think that it
"succeeded". After all, at the end of the operation, the
"Peter" == Peter Seebach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Well, imagine a hypothetical broken system in which two
Peter simultaneous calls to mkdir, on some hypothetical broken
Peter filesystem, can each think that it "succeeded". After all,
Peter at the end of the operation,
(owner-freebsd-hackers removed from list)
:You're implying that you are making two calls to create the same
:directory. Am I correct?
:
:The answer is 'maybe'? Depends on the remote NFS server. Matt or one
:of the other NFS gurus may know more, but I wouldn't count on *anything*
:over
13 matches
Mail list logo
