Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems)

[Alfred Perlstein]

* Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010206 12:07] wrote:
>
> Yes, my understanding of the meaning of "ordered meta-date update" as
> I have grasped it from Terry's rants in the past years is not that all
> meta-data updates on a filesystem have to be done one-after-the-other
> but ordered in respect to each other; That a link() happens before a
> unlink() on the same file. Does this make sense?

Only when done by a single process or something waits for the link
to complete before starting the unlink.  If two processes "race"
to link and unlink then no.

> >     (I will mention here that, of course, sendmail and postfix are no better
> >     in this regard.  This is not a detriment to QMail itself verses other
> >     mailers.  Since QMail fsync()'s reasonably, it will be just as reliable
> >     as other existing MTAs).
> 
> Does sendmail even use fsync()?

It better. :)

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message