Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>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...
Qmail is not broken and issues a SMTP 250 with the inode number of
the queue file when the fsync() call on that file has completed.
> 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 ...
Qmail uses it extensivly. Qmail treats the queue as a transactional
database with roll-forward and roll-backs in the event of a crash.
--
Andre
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
