Re: Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS

2000-07-17 Thread Bruce Guenter
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 04:39:01PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote: > > Which to me seems to be a more logical mode of operations: if you > > want the file data sync'd to disk, call fsync on the file; if you > > want the directory, fsync the directory. > > Perhaps. There are arguments for either model

Re: Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS

2000-07-17 Thread Greg Hudson
>> For the record, FFS with soft-updates does not guarantee synchronous >> directory operations; you have to open and fsync() the file you just >> moved to be sure the operation has been committed to disk. See >> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2000/06/19/0011.html for a >> little more

Re: Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS

2000-07-17 Thread Michael Babcock
The 'sane' response would be to buy high-end power protection equipment and use redundant drive configurations (RAID) and only worry about whether the kernel writes out data consistently or not (and good journalling takes care of many performance issues here). Reliability of gigabytes per minute

Re: Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS

2000-07-17 Thread Greg Hudson
Apologies for not catching this in my first reply to Bruce's message. > There is also the discussion of ordered meta-data updates (OMDU) vs > unordered (UMDU). Linux (with the exception of newer journalled > file systems) does UMDU. With OMDU, the file meta-data (inode, > indirect blocks, etc)

Re: Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS

2000-07-17 Thread Bruce Guenter
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 03:59:00PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote: > > It is DJB's view that all directory operations (creating, removing, > > linking, etc.) sould be synchronous, just like BSD does. > > For the record, FFS with soft-updates does not guarantee synchronous > directory operations; you ha

Re: Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS

2000-07-17 Thread Greg Hudson
> It is DJB's view that all directory operations (creating, removing, > linking, etc.) sould be synchronous, just like BSD does. For the record, FFS with soft-updates does not guarantee synchronous directory operations; you have to open and fsync() the file you just moved to be sure the operation

Re: Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS

2000-07-17 Thread Bruce Guenter
On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 06:55:21PM +0200, Jedi/Sector One wrote: > ReiserFS does not commit link() synchronously (mounting with "sync" > doesn't change anything). Therefore, if there is a power outage during > the Maildir delivery or if qmail-smtpd answered the final "queued" > message without a

Qmail is *NOT* reliable with ReiserFS

2000-07-16 Thread Jedi/Sector One
ReiserFS does not commit link() synchronously (mounting with "sync" doesn't change anything). Therefore, if there is a power outage during the Maildir delivery or if qmail-smtpd answered the final "queued" message without actually commiting the link in queue/todo, the message will not be process