From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Feb  6 12:16:59 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F2E37B503
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  6 Feb 2001 12:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
	by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f16KDvl20728;
	Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:13:57 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net>
Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
	Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>,
	Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>,
	Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com>,
	Dan Phoenix <dphoenix@bravenet.com>, Jos Backus <josb@cncdsl.com>,
	freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems)
Message-ID: <20010206121357.S26076@fw.wintelcom.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061555550.1535-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> <3A805035.C71AAD5E@monzoon.net> <200102061943.f16Jhp365113@earth.backplane.com> <3A805938.96ED890D@monzoon.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <3A805938.96ED890D@monzoon.net>; from oppermann@monzoon.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:06:16PM +0100
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

* Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net> [010206 12:07] wrote:
>
> Yes, my understanding of the meaning of "ordered meta-date update" as
> I have grasped it from Terry's rants in the past years is not that all
> meta-data updates on a filesystem have to be done one-after-the-other
> but ordered in respect to each other; That a link() happens before a
> unlink() on the same file. Does this make sense?

Only when done by a single process or something waits for the link
to complete before starting the unlink.  If two processes "race"
to link and unlink then no.

> >     (I will mention here that, of course, sendmail and postfix are no better
> >     in this regard.  This is not a detriment to QMail itself verses other
> >     mailers.  Since QMail fsync()'s reasonably, it will be just as reliable
> >     as other existing MTAs).
> 
> Does sendmail even use fsync()?

It better. :)

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message