Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Atomicity\s+of\s+xfs_fsr\s+\-\-\s+also\s+isolation\?\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:04:41 +0100
The xfs_fsr manpage contains the following notes: 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
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00116.html (7,780 bytes)

2. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:19:17 +0100
also sprach Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005.02.16.1104 +0100]: 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; (g
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00117.html (8,825 bytes)

3. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:00:43 -0600
martin f krafft wrote: 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
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00118.html (9,506 bytes)

4. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:07:22 +0100
* martin f. krafft: 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.
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00119.html (8,231 bytes)

5. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:20:22 +0100
also sprach Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005.02.16.1407 +0100]: ... not if they introduce conflicts or cause data loss, though. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mai
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00120.html (9,104 bytes)

6. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:07:27 +0100
* martin f. krafft: Non-serializable histories can result in wrong data even if all transactions involved are atomic. Of course, this is just a matter of definitions Yours seems to include isolation.
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00121.html (8,622 bytes)

7. Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:04:41 +0100
The xfs_fsr manpage contains the following notes: 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
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00273.html (7,780 bytes)

8. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:19:17 +0100
also sprach Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005.02.16.1104 +0100]: 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; (g
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00274.html (8,825 bytes)

9. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:00:43 -0600
martin f krafft wrote: 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
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00275.html (9,506 bytes)

10. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:07:22 +0100
* martin f. krafft: 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.
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00276.html (8,231 bytes)

11. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:20:22 +0100
also sprach Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005.02.16.1407 +0100]: ... not if they introduce conflicts or cause data loss, though. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mai
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00277.html (9,104 bytes)

12. Re: Atomicity of xfs_fsr -- also isolation? (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:07:27 +0100
* martin f. krafft: Non-serializable histories can result in wrong data even if all transactions involved are atomic. Of course, this is just a matter of definitions Yours seems to include isolation.
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00278.html (8,622 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu