Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:40:19 -0200 (BRDT) From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com>, "'Matt Dillon'" <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Dan Phoenix <dphoenix@bravenet.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Jos Backus <josb@cncdsl.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061538290.1535-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <35545.981478627@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <5FE9B713CCCDD311A03400508B8B3013054E3F5D@bdr-xcln.is.matchlogic.com>, Charles Randall writes: > >The qmail FAQ specifically recommends against soft updates for the mail > >queue. > > > >http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html#filesystems > > > >Is this incorrect? > > It seems to indicate that qmail doesn't use fsync(2) as much as > it should do. If that is true, then yes, softupdates would mean > that a lot of things which qmail (mistakenly) think has been > written are in fact not on the disk. If this is true, I guess qmail can be officially considered broken. IIRC SMTP requires you to wait until the data is on stable (non-volatile) storage until you are allowed to return SMTP 250... The system call used to guarantee this is fsync (and friends?); if qmail doesn't use it but makes assumptions that aren't true on any decent OS out there ... regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ 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?Pine.LNX.4.21.0102061538290.1535-100000>