Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:59:31 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com>, Dan Phoenix <dphoenix@bravenet.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Jos Backus <josb@cncdsl.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Message-ID: <200102061859.f16IxVv63887@earth.backplane.com> References: <35545.981478627@critter> <3A8047AB.D5B0FBB9@monzoon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: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 I did a quick search of the qmail site but couldn't find an email address to report the FAQ issue to. If QMail calls fsync() in a reasonable manner, then softupdates is perfectly safe and the QMail FAQ needs to be updated to recommend softupdates rather then disrecommend it. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102061859.f16IxVv63887>