Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:31:59 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>, Nikita@Namesys.COM Cc: lioux@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: QMail and SoftUpdates Message-ID: <200405181931.59373@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405181617040.41838-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0405181617040.41838-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=On Tue, 18 May 2004, Don Lewis wrote: = => On 18 May, Julian Elischer wrote: => > => > =[...] = => > => > An fsync will sync ALL directory entries pointing to the file => => I haven't looked at how qmail works, but my suspicion is that it => fsync()s the file and then creates a link (and probably unlinks => the old name) to mark the queue file as valid and is not partially => written. I think this would work with softupdates if the file were => fsync()ed again after the link() call. I won't comment about why this => change is unlikely to make it into the code. = =a single fsync AFTER the link but before acking the mail would be =sufficient. Should the mail/qmail port do that? -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200405181931.59373>