From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Feb  6 12:33:56 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 2D64637B4EC
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  6 Feb 2001 12:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 13838 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2001 20:30:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO monzoon.net) ([195.134.133.140]) (envelope-sender <oppermann@monzoon.net>)
          by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <bright@wintelcom.net>; 6 Feb 2001 20:30:24 -0000
Message-ID: <3A805F53.F5CD60D9@monzoon.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:32:19 +0100
From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.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)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061555550.1535-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> <3A805035.C71AAD5E@monzoon.net> <200102061943.f16Jhp365113@earth.backplane.com> <3A805938.96ED890D@monzoon.net> <20010206121357.S26076@fw.wintelcom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 
> * 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.

It is just one process waiting for the link() to complete. And then
unlink(). After completion a IPC signal is send to another process
to pick the file up and continue processing.

-- 
Andre


> > >     (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