On Fri, 02 Jun 2006, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.02.1545 > +0200]: > > No, it is not. XFS has bad data-ordering-flush semanthics for > > resilience, they are superb for speed and performance, NOT for > > data safety. It won't guarantee data safety unless you fsync(), > > umount or mount -o ro,remount... and it does *not* guarantee data > > safety on global sync(), which is what this bug is about. > > I suppose you have thought about this before. :)
I have been on the bad side of XFS / before, I take my time to warn people off that every time I see someone too happy about an all-XFS system :-) > > I still think an hibernate scriptlet to mount partitions readonly > > (instead of just umounting them) is a valid, useful wish. And it > > would fix the issue with /boot as XFS (but not of / as XFS). > > Okay. Retitle the bug then? Please do, I am only spending a little time on hibernate, and I am not even a co-maintainer, so I'd rather the bug owner did this :-) -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
