On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> In fact, knowing how hard disks work mechanically, only
> journaling filesystems could have an extention to make
> this work. Ie. this is NOT something you can rely on ;)
This is not about failing hard disks. It is about premature
acknowledgment of something which has not happened at that time.
Linux cannot possibly fix all incomplete protocols, specifications and
implementation, but it can fix its own behaviour.
Everything is about speed, and allowing the MTA to use a (weaker)
dirsync rather than allsync option would speed things up without
sacrificing reliability.
MTA reliability is NOT about failing disk drives. If it falls over, you
notice that. If files are in the wrong directory or not there at all,
you don't necessarily notice until someone complains.
Please don't get in the way of finally fixing things just because
someone might have a broken item that could endanger your data. I have a
huge magnet here...
The competition is there and it has names: BSD + ufs + softupdates,
Solaris + logging ufs. Read MTA mailing lists before obstructing.
Thanks.
-- Matthias Andree - 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 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:00:26 EST