xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Follow up -- Re: Files on XFS not safe?!

To: Dan Hollis <goemon@xxxxxxxxx>, Xianglong Yuan <yuanx@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Follow up -- Re: Files on XFS not safe?!
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 08:46:53 +0100
Cc: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112051408030.8130-100000@anime.net>
References: <20011205140358.F3446@real-uma.mit.edu>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 14:16 5-12-2001 -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Xianglong Yuan wrote:
> I just cross-by an excellent article on various journaling
> techniques used in ext3.
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-fs8.html

It looks like tux2 is taking a different approach, and one of the goals is
total data integrity -- not just metadata. They are using phase trees.
It's been described as "failsafe" whereas XFS and most other journaling fs
are just "crash resistant".

I don't know if your database would like that approach. XFS makes sure my database stays intact after a crash while the database itself (Progress 9) manages the rest of the recovery process for stuff that it was working in while it crashed.


Tux2 seems to be a really good idea for static content systems but I am afraid that databases will not like phase trees.

I have not read the page yet so I might be all wrong ofcourse.

Cheers

--
Seth
Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.


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