| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? |
| From: | martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:20:22 +0100 |
| In-reply-to: | <87vf8swt4l.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <87ll9obz2e.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050216101917.GA21891@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87vf8swt4l.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
also sprach Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005.02.16.1407 +0100]: > It's possible to have atomic updates without isolation, at least in > the database sense of the term (think ACID). That's why I ask. ... not if they introduce conflicts or cause data loss, though. -- 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 "der beruf ist eine schutzwehr, hinter welche man sich erlaubterweise zurückziehen kann, wenn bedenken und sorgen allgemeiner art einen anfallen." - friedrich nietzsche
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation?, Florian Weimer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation?, Florian Weimer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation?, Florian Weimer |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation?, Florian Weimer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |