On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 06:46:19AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > mickey wrote: > > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 07:06:06AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > >> George C wrote: > ... > >> > Is it always best to mount /, /tmp, /usr, /var, /home with softdep? > >> > Under what curcumstances would it not be appropriate? > >> > >> If your app makes assumptions about write ordering, softdeps can negate > >> the care the app author took. For example, some mail programs don't ack > >> the receipt of a message until it has been safely written to disk, the > >> idea being that if the power goes out or the machine crashes, if the > >> message has been acknowledged, IT HAS BEEN RECEIVED and will be there > >> when the machine comes back up. Softdeps promises that what is on your > >> disk is coherent, but "coherent" usually means the last few files written > >> to disk may be just removed when the system comes back up. Not desired > >> in this case. > > > > this is not true. fsync() works as specified. > > Apparently, not all apps use fsync, or don't use it properly.
oh so now you are saying that softdeps are broken because applications are not calling fsync() ? > At least qmail advises against the use of softdeps: > http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html#filesystems > I also found a reference to another mail program which had people > making similar advisories, but not sure if they are still applicable. you whole above statement is wrong and is not based on facts. now you are trying to back it up w/ somebody elses opinion that is also not based on facts. now it is also in the archives and peoples will refer to it as some sort of truth. the damage has been done. cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
