Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:41:31 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, 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: <3A80536B.9A84B1B@monzoon.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0102061305430.15212-100000@achilles.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Silbersack wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > > > 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 > > The question still reamins about link/unlink/rename. Is a fsync of the > directory necessary to ensure that they completed properly? As they take > filenames instead of fds, an fsync after the operation seems > non-intuitive. The rename manpage seems to imply that the operation is > synchronous - the other two are ambiguous. The link() man page states link()s happen atomically. This is all we need here. This assures us that we will always have the file in the new place before we unlink() it in the old place. -- Andre 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?3A80536B.9A84B1B>