xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Might have found a bug...

To: Marc Jauvin <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Might have found a bug...
From: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 19:06:10 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <989601520.3afc1ef08242d@jauvin.com.webmail4less.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Is there anyway to mount with less latency on the writes?

-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 11 May 2001, Marc Jauvin wrote:

> I understand, but the file should have been kept to its original state, no? I
> had garbage all over the file after the reset...
>
>
> Russell Cattelan wrote:
>
> > Marc Jauvin wrote:
>
> >> This message was sent from http://linux-xfs.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
> >>
> >> ----
> >>
> >> I installed XFS 1.0 for RedHat 7.1 and everything is great... until I did 
> >> the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> make modification to /etc/fstab, and IMMEDIATELY after saving the
> >> modifications, I hit the reset button; when the system reboots, the
> >> /etc/fstab is baddly corrupted and XFS does not fix it (end up using the
> >> linux rescue disk to fix fstab manually\)
> >>
> >> I could reproduce the bug 2 times;
>
> >> Any idea\?
>
> > Yes don't do that.
> > XFS uses delayed allocation / delayed write by default any data written
> > immediacy before a crash probably won't be on
> > disk, this is known behavior and isn't considered a bug, it's a trade off.
> > Full sync mode on file systems is much safer and gives more likely hood of
> > data integrity. caches gives much better
> > performance but has the potential of losing cached data in the event of a
> > crash.
>
>
>
> --
> marc.
>
> 3 out of 4 Americans make up 75% of the population.
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>