Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 20:47:45 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net> To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com>, 'Matt Dillon' <dillon@earth.backplane.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: <3A8054E1.801E3B4E@monzoon.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061730380.1535-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > Qmail depends on ordered-metadata updates (Terry! :-). That > > means if you issue a link() to the new place and a unlink() in > > the old place it should guarantee that the link() happens > > *BEFORE* the unlink(). > > > > As it is, I can only recommend people to go with something > > > like postfix, Exim or zmailer ... > > > > Have a look at the qmail source and the facts before you spill > > out such a *bullshit*! > > If qmail depends on a behaviour which isn't guaranteed by > some OSes ... Under Linux ext2 doesn't even guarantee that fsync() does what it is supposed to do. Not even postfix or whatever can work around that. At least qmail says it requires these semantics to not loose messages. What it boils down to is that Linux ext2 is a no-no for any no-loss reliable mail service. -- 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?3A8054E1.801E3B4E>