From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 18 17:25:26 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F6016A4CF; Tue, 18 May 2004 17:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from corbulon.video-collage.com (corbulon.video-collage.com [64.35.99.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7357F43D31; Tue, 18 May 2004 17:25:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from 250-217.customer.cloud9.net (195-11.customer.cloud9.net [168.100.195.11])i4INW7B5013448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 May 2004 19:32:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from localhost (mteterin@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i4INW0b5016870; Tue, 18 May 2004 19:32:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com) From: Mikhail Teterin Organization: Virtual Estates, Inc. To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, Julian Elischer , Don Lewis , Nikita@Namesys.COM Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:31:59 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-u" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405181931.59373@misha-mx.virtual-estates.net> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 cc: lioux@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: QMail and SoftUpdates X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:25:26 -0000 =On Tue, 18 May 2004, Don Lewis wrote: = => On 18 May, Julian Elischer wrote: => > => > =[...] = => > => > An fsync will sync ALL directory entries pointing to the file => => I haven't looked at how qmail works, but my suspicion is that it => fsync()s the file and then creates a link (and probably unlinks => the old name) to mark the queue file as valid and is not partially => written. I think this would work with softupdates if the file were => fsync()ed again after the link() call. I won't comment about why this => change is unlikely to make it into the code. = =a single fsync AFTER the link but before acking the mail would be =sufficient. Should the mail/qmail port do that? -mi