Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:33:00 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, 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: <20010206123259.U26076@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <3A805E94.8FF4F103@monzoon.net>; from oppermann@monzoon.net on Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 09:29:08PM %2B0100 References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061822240.1535-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> <3A805E94.8FF4F103@monzoon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Andre Oppermann <oppermann@monzoon.net> [010206 12:30] wrote: > Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > > > But please answer me one question: Is the link() call atomically > > > in FFS/UFS w or w/o softupdates? Meaning when the call returns > > > the meta- data is written to stable storage like with fsync()? > > > > Since when does `atomic' equal `synchronous' ? > > Because otherwise it would not be atomically, would it? Softupdates does it atomically but not synchronously. :) Basically, the in-memory view of the filesystem != the on-disk version. The update happens atomically with respect to locking in memory, so running processes never see a non-atomic snapshot of the directory, but if a crash occurs the disk may be several steps behind the memory at the time of the crash. -- -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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010206123259.U26076>