From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 6 10:52:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5573B37B491 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:52:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11130 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 18:49:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monzoon.net) ([195.134.133.140]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 6 Feb 2001 18:49:28 -0000 Message-ID: <3A8047AB.D5B0FBB9@monzoon.net> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 19:51:23 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Charles Randall , 'Matt Dillon' , Dan Phoenix , Alfred Perlstein , Jos Backus , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) References: <35545.981478627@critter> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <5FE9B713CCCDD311A03400508B8B3013054E3F5D@bdr-xcln.is.matchlogic.com>, Charles Randall writes: > >The qmail FAQ specifically recommends against soft updates for the mail > >queue. > > > >http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html#filesystems > > > >Is this incorrect? > > > > It seems to indicate that qmail doesn't use fsync(2) as much as it should > do. If that is true, then yes, softupdates would mean that a lot of things > which qmail (mistakenly) think has been written are in fact not on the > disk. Qmail uses fsync() *very* extensivly! I know pretty well, I wrote the qmail-ldap patch. (avail on http://www.nrg4u.com). PS: Poul, have you got my email from yesterday night? -- Andre To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message