| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? |
| From: | martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:19:17 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <87ll9obz2e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <87ll9obz2e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
also sprach Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005.02.16.1104 +0100]: > Is it safe to run xfs_fsr on a file which is regularly updated? It > seems that if a copy is made and later linked as the original, updates > to the file might be lost. Is this really the case? It does say "in an atomic manner", leading me to believe that updates to the file are not going to get in the way. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! spamtraps: madduck.bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx tempt not a desperate man. -- william shakespeare
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation?, Florian Weimer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation?, Steve Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation?, Florian Weimer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation?, Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |