On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, [iso-8859-1] Martín Marqués wrote:
>On Jue 20 Jun 2002 17:17, Ragnar Kjørstad wrote:
>>
>> In particular there is a thread about filesystem-features
>> required for mailservers, and there is a post from Wietse where he
>> writes:
>>
>> "ext2fs isn't a great file system for mail. Queue files are short-lived,
>> so mail delivery involves are a lot of directory operations. ext2fs
>> has ASYNCHRONOUS DIRECTORY updates and can lose a file even when
>> fsync() on the file succeeds."
>
>Sorry, but I think Wietse was talking about ext3, not ext2.
>
>ext3 has asyncronous updates, as it's a journal FS. Not an expert on FS, but I
>read Wietse's mail on the Postfix mailling list.
Negative. ext2 by default on every linux distro I've ever encountered
is mounted async. You /can/ mount ext2 filesystems synchronously but
performance falls through the floor, the earth's crust and well into the
mantle.
--
Brandon D. Valentine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Computer Geek, Center for Structural Biology
"This isn't rocket science -- but it _is_ computer science."
- Terry Lambert on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
