:I do. Is it safe there as well (from your point of view)? : :-- :Andre Yes. In general softupdates will make the entire filesystem safer. The commit sequencing doesn't match what qmail expects, but there are so many fsyncs going on that the absolute worse that can happen in a crash is a just-deleted queue file showing up in the queue directory after crash recovery. And, really, qmail shouldn't be making assumptions about system calls committing operations to disk synchronously. Very few modern filesystems actually do that... FFS (without softupdates) is one of the last ones. -Matt 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) Anton Berezin
- Re: vinum and (now) postfix Thomas Str�mberg
- 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
- Re: soft updates and qmail (RE: qmail IO problems) Tony Finch