From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 26 17:25:27 2005 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 C197116A4CE for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:25:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B0A43D4C for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:25:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0QHPfj1014083; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:25:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j0QHPfa9014082; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:25:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:25:41 -0500 From: David Schultz To: Arne WXrner Message-ID: <20050126172541.GA13950@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: Arne WXrner , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20050126140058.19161.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050126140058.19161.qmail@web41203.mail.yahoo.com> cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ufs+softupdates / consistency 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, 26 Jan 2005 17:25:27 -0000 On Wed, Jan 26, 2005, Arne WXrner wrote: > Hi! > > On > http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2intro.html > I found the strings > "BSD-like synchronous updates" > "it can cause corruption in the user data" . > > On > http://www.mckusick.com/softdep/ > I did not find such a statement. > > Are soft updates safe for user data? I do not really understand, > what the first www page means... Maybe they mean, that the new > file size (that would be meta data, I think) is written before the > user data, so that the file contains undetermined data in its > tail. The ext2fs paper you refer to was published at about the same time as Ganger and Patt's Soft Updates paper, so I think it's safe to say that the authors of the former didn't know about Soft Updates. The comments you refer to that seem to imply that synchronous updates are unsafe and asynchronous updates are safer are wrong in general (synchronous updates are safer), but the authors may be referring to bugs in the ext2fs implementation at that time. Soft Updates, in contrast, provides asynchronous updates, issued in an order that makes them safe.