On Fri, 28 May 1999 10:11:02 -0600, "Jeff Merkey"
<jmerkey@timpanogas.com> said:
> NTFS, for example, only posts meta data to the log file for restart,
> and does not post user writes to the journal. This means you can
> lose user data on a restart.
This is expected behaviour. This is the defined Unix semantics. Unix
provides an API which allows the application to request data
synchronisation with the disk if it wants it --- the semantics
explicitly do not guarantee this unless you use fsync/fdatasync or
O_SYNC/O_DSYNC.
> If XFS is only writing meta data to the journal, and not user data,
> as you suggest, then you are technically correct that reads do not
> have to be serialized, however, this also means that XFS is not a
> **TRUE** journalling file system because you can lose user data on
> restarts
Of course it is true journaling. It just has different semantics to a
system which journals data synchronously.
> and the benefits it provides for journalling are not much better
> than running "fsck" after a system crash.
That is the whole point, tho. fsck elimination is precisely why most
Unix journaling filesystems were written.
> Surely this is not the case -- this would mean that XFS is no better than
> NTFS.
Huh?
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/