On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Miles Nordin wrote:
And the guarantees ARE minimal---just: http://www.google.com/search?q=POSIX+%22crash+consistency%22 and you'll find even people against T'so's who want to change ext4 still agree POSIX is on T'so's side.
Clearly I am guilty of inflated expectations. Regardless, POSIX specifications define a "minimum set" of expectations and there is nothing to prevent vendors from offering more, or for enhanced specifications (e.g. Open Group) from raising the bar.
Now that I am more aware of the situation, I can see that users of my software are likely to lose files if the system were to crash. There is a "fsync-safe" mode for my software which should avoid this but application performance would suffer quite a lot if it was used on a large scale.
If ZFS does try to order its disk updates in cronological order without prioritizing metadata updates over data, then the risk is minimized.
While a number of esteemed Sun kernel engineers have expressed their views here, we have yet to hear an opinion/statement from a Sun ZFS development engineer.
Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
