xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS

To: Ragnar Kjørstad <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Comparing XFS with ext3 and ReiserFS
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 13:04:13 +0200
Cc: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20010506124745.B11559@xxxxxxxxxxx>; from xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:47:45PM +0200
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105061818500.10780-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010506124745.B11559@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:47:45PM +0200, Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:
> A MTA should write the mail to disk (and use fsync) _before_ it tells
> the sender that the mail has been accepted. This way there is no risk of
> loosing mail. I believe qmail doesn't use fsync, but relies on the
> filesystem beeing mounted with sync-option (or chattr +S on that
> directory). Because doing all IO syncroniously would kill performance,
> the reiserfs-team fixed qmail instead of suggesting that people mount
> with sync option (or implement chattr +S).

qmail uses fsync, but relies on the file system to flush metadata
in the spool dir (directory names etc.) synchronously. The guarantee 
in reiserfs that fsync flushes all pending transactions works fine with
qmail. The fsync on the file data after file create forces the filename
on disk which has been in an earlier transaction, and any other metadata 
operations after the fsync (rename/link in Maildir etc.) which could be lost 
are redoable after a crash.

I am not sure if XFS has the same strong ordering (fsync flushing all pending
transactions), perhaps one of the XFS developers could comment.

-Andi

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