Re: Linux 2.6.29

[Andreas T.Auer]

On 30.03.2009 11:05 Alan Cox wrote:
>> It seems you still didn't get the point. ext3 data=ordered is not the
>> problem. The problem is that the average developer doesn't expect the fs
>> to _re-order_ stuff. This is how most common fs did work long before
>>     
>
> No it isn´t. Standard Unix file systems made no such guarantee and would
> write out data out of order. The disk scheduler would then further
> re-order things.
>
>   
You surely know that better: Did fs actually write "later" data quite
long before "earlier" data? During the flush data may be re-ordered, but
was it also _done_ outside of it?

> If you think the ¨guarantees¨ from before ext3 are normal defaults you´ve
> been writing junk code
>
>   
I'm still on ReiserFS since it was considered stable in some SuSE 7.x.
And I expected it to be fairly ordered, but as a network protocol
programmer I didn't rely on the ordering of fs write-outs yet.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/