On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Robert Tortajada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> The bad return from fsync is -1 so I am not sure that will be helpfull.
>> However, couldn't we just disable DIRSYNC since that seems to be the issue?
>>
>
>Yeah. Just disable DIRSYNC. This will slightly increase
>the risk of database corruption following a power failure
>(the risk is that the journal files name will be lost and
>the file itself will be moved into /lost+found). But how
>often does that happen, really?
Given that any OS today surely does directory manipulation either
synchronously, in-order (such as soft updates) or journalled, is this a
case that can even occur?
Christian
--
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
X - AGAINST MS ATTACHMENTS
/ \
