Matt Dillon wrote: > > Well, after a long conversation with Mr Bernstein and Kirk it turns out > that all my blathering about a normal FFS mount being easily corruptable > due to a crash occuring during heavy disk I/O (e.g. from qmail) is so > much smoke. > > The fsync()/rename() combination that QMail does should be sufficient to > guarentee (baring a bug in kernel) that a crash will not result in any > lost mail queue files when using a normal FFS mount (without softupdates). > > However, I still recommend using softupdates. I do. Is it safe there as well (from your point of view)? -- Andre > -Matt > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re: vinum and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Matt Dillon
- Re: vinum and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Anton Berezin
- Re: vinum and (now) postfix Thomas Strömberg
- Re: vinum and (now) postfix Chris Faulhaber
- Re: vinum and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Greg Lehey
- Re: vinum and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Greg Lehey
- Re: vinum and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Michael C . Wu
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Matt Dillon
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Alfred Perlstein
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Matt Dillon
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Andre Oppermann
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Matt Dillon
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Greg Black
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Matt Dillon
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Aleksandr A.Babaylov
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Matt Dillon
- soft updates performance Greg Black
- Re: soft updates performance Matt Dillon
- Re: soft updates performance Alfred Perlstein
- Re: soft updates performance Greg Black
- Re: soft updates performance Kent Stewart