Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

Can't we all just get along ? Fuck sake, does someone here thinks this thread is going anywhere ?

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > My anonymous friend, you need to accept *PEOPLE* write software. Those > little things like experience, skills, and even personality are present > in the output of programmers. Of course, but this was about his software, not him, and let's k

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:01:53 -0500 nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 PM, J.C. Roberts > wrote: > >DJB does great work and thinks about his code. Like every great > > programmer, DJB wants his code to be as "correct" as possible > > within the very well known bounding limitations (ha

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 04:04:13PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback > wrote: > > Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. > >> Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will > > work. In 'most' cases you will b

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

blah blah blah On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 04:04:13PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback > wrote: > > Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. > >> Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will > > work. In 'most'

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. >> Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will > work. In 'most' cases you will be suffering huge performance loses for > negligable increases in saf

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:27:51AM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: | Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it. | | Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will | work. In 'most' cases you will be suffering huge performance loses for | negligable increa

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:33:20PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom > wrote: > >> > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurg

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:14PM +, nixlists wrote: > What are you running? Exchange?? > > Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save > from most, but not all lost messages after a crash. > > Anyway, before we divert to a some other topic, someone please answer >

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

will you believe me if i restate your question and his answer? question: if i turn off the cache on the controller and the disk what is keeping rename from ensuring that the file is never lost answer: you can't actually know that the cache is shut off on the disk, so the question is moot. even

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

> looming. I am trying to understand the technical issues, not You mean you're not just arguing because you have a burning need to be right on the intertruck due to personal issues? Color me surprised.

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:57 PM, nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one >> more time. > > No, you didn't, see below. yes, he did. you're confusing "i didn't hear what i wanted to hear" with "i

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: >DJB does great work and thinks about his code. Like every great > programmer, DJB wants his code to be as "correct" as possible within the > very well known bounding limitations (hardware, compilers, operating > systems, file system code, and s

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 22:33:20 nixlists wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom > >> > wrote: > >> > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all > >> > over again. Take your toy mail implementa

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one > more time. No, you didn't, see below. This thread started here: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=126435421227560&w=2 After I replied to that message (specifically

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 6:11 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32:10 -0800 Ben Calvert > wrote: > >> >> On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> There is no certainty. >>> There is only belief. >

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Brad Tilley wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, "Ben Calvert" wrote: > >> Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see >> the >> problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician (DJB) about >> the >> infallibility of his sof

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:47 PM, frantisek holop wrote: > hmm, on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Ben Calvert said that >> the unnamed individual (with such great faith in his mail system that he uses >> gmail to correspond with us) is actually performing the valuable function of >> helping me

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32:10 -0800 Ben Calvert wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists > > wrote: > > > > > > > There is no certainty. > > There is only belief. > > Tracing this discussion back to it's origins ear

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one more time. You can't trust one million lines of code between your application and the physical hardware to all be perfect and guarantee you anything more than "best effort". That includes your hyperbole. Now you draw your concl

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

Nobody debated his ability to write code. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 07:30:47PM -0500, Brad Tilley wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, "Ben Calvert" wrote: > > > Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see > > the > > problem as arising from a statement made by a M

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

hmm, on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Ben Calvert said that > the unnamed individual (with such great faith in his mail system that he uses > gmail to correspond with us) is actually performing the valuable function of > helping me compose interview questions to weed out undesirable job ap

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, "Ben Calvert" wrote: > Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see > the > problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician (DJB) about > the > infallibility of his software when used with certain filesystems. > > It is unde

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:33:20PM -0500, nixlists wrote: | On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert | wrote: | > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: | >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom | wrote: | >> > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurg

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over >> > again. Take your toy mail implementation and

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over > > again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair. > > You are still refusing to give a direct

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over > again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair. You are still refusing to give a direct answer to a direct question. How's that not ignorant? I wonder why

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

wc -l the code and tell me again how that makes you feel. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:48:59PM +, nixlists wrote: > Just to remind: > > rename() causes the link named from to be renamed as to. If to exists, > it is first removed. Both from and to must be of the same type (that is, >

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:14PM +, nixlists wrote: > What are you running? Exchange?? > > Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

What are you running? Exchange?? Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save from most, but not all lost messages after a crash. Anyway, before we divert to a some other topic, someone please answer the question for the simplest case - we've already decided that every RA

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

Just to remind: rename() causes the link named from to be renamed as to. If to exists, it is first removed. Both from and to must be of the same type (that is, both directories or both non-directories), and must reside on the same file system. rename() guarantees that if to

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists wrote: > > > There is no certainty. > There is only belief. Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see the problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On a completely unrelated note, I'm glad I came up with rules to redirect all smtpd related mails to my phone ... smart idea ... :-) Gilles On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:20:24AM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists wrote: > > > >> provided that the controller

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists wrote: > >> provided that the controller is configured not to write-back cache, > >> the drives are configured not to write-back cache, the FS is > >> mounted 'sync'. No softupdates. Let's not divert this to something > >> tangential and unrelated. I'll

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:04:15PM -0800, Ben Calvert wrote: > On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:06 PM, nixlists wrote: > > > > I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > > will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > > controller or drives > > really? how sure

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:06 PM, nixlists wrote: > > I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > controller or drives really? how sure of this are you? let's poll the population of misc@ how many administrat

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23:46PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> >> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin >> >> will run a mail server with write-back c

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23 PM, nixlists wrote: > Let's all roll-over and die - we might die any second anyway because > nothing is guaranteed, so why stay alive? Are thousands of people > running mail servers losing messages in crashes all the time, and are > unaware of it? Hopefully the peopl

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23:46PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > >> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > >> will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > >> controller or drives (well, maybe w

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Nick Holland wrote: > nixlists wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either controller or drive

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

nixlists wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >>> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin >>> will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either >>> controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say >>> again

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: >> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin >> will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either >> controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say >> again that batteries fail t

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

> I specifically wrote above "When configured as documented." No admin > will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either > controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say > again that batteries fail too). You seem to be taking what I wrote out > of context, or

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:22:08PM -0500, nixlists wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg >> wrote: >> > In message , >> > Marco Peereboom wrote >> >> You can

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:22:08PM -0500, nixlists wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg > wrote: > > In message , > > Marco Peereboom wrote > >> You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

> When configured as documented - no controller write-back cache (maybe > with a battery back-up, but batteries fail too), no drive write-back > cache, no async mounts, no known buggy stuff. > > Which hardware??? Could someone at least point out one example of such > hardware? > > I, and, I am sur

Re: rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg wrote: > In message , > Marco Peereboom wrote >> You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does >> what it does and claiming that a piece of software is crash proof

rename(2) man page (was: Re: OpenSMTPd actual development and integration)

In message , Marco Peereboom wrote > You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does > what it does and claiming that a piece of software is crash proof is > naive at best. Hmm. Our rename(2) man page currently says: