On February 13, 2002 11:53 pm, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Because people count on something broken we should keep the bug? You do
> > > realize that the sync may NEVER finish?
> >
> > You do realize that if you lose your data you may NEVER get it back? ;-)
>
> The sync doesn't protect my data, after my data has been written why
> should I care to wait while all the data in every active program in the
> system gets written. This makes checkpoints stop points on a busy system.
Sync should not wait for data written after the sync. If it does, it's
broken and needs to be fixed.
> > > Your example is a good example of bad practive, since even with
> > > ext3 a program creating files quickly would lose data, even though the
> > > directory structure is returned to a known state, without stopping the
> > > writing processes the results are unknown.
> >
> > Huh? You know about journal commit, right?
>
> Read or reread my other notes on that, journal prevents directory
> corruption, it doesn't prevent data loss like a database transaction.
> Returning to a known good state does not include "without losing any data
> written to unclosed files."
It's true, we get into great areas with ordered-data journalling, but it's
black and white with full data journalling.
> I leave it to Mr Reiser to clarify that or correct me if data is protected
> without using unbuffered writes.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:58 EST