Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem comes from the fact that Linux does not adhere to BSD semantics
>regarding the sync() system call. BSD semantics state that if you sync a
>file, it's data and it's metadata are synced to disc.
>
>Linux, on the other hand, syncs only the dat
Nick (Keith) Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure on the statement that qmail is unreliable under Linux due to
> its assumptiopn that "link is a synchronous operation". I've never read
> anything about it. Anyone else?
The problem comes from the fact that Linux does not adhere to B
On Wed, Jun 20 2001, Peter van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 08:15:11PM +, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote:
> [snip]
> > I'm not sure on the statement that qmail is unreliable under Linux due to
> > its assumptiopn that "link is a synchronous operation". I've never read
>
CTED]>
Cc: "Qmail Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: ReiserFs and qmail
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote:
>
> > I am not sure about the recommendation to lower the conf-split, since,
> > again, I am n
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote:
> I am not sure about the recommendation to lower the conf-split, since,
> again, I am not in any way familiar with ReiserFS's operation. Generally
> you want a large split since filesystems perform better with many
> directories with a couple of fil
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 08:15:11PM +, Nick (Keith) Fish wrote:
[snip]
> I'm not sure on the statement that qmail is unreliable under Linux due to
> its assumptiopn that "link is a synchronous operation". I've never read
> anything about it. Anyone else?
This is true. I'm not sure, however,
Paco Gracia wrote:
>
> I have done some research and I found a "Qmail and ReiserFS integration and
> optimization HOWTO" in http://www.jedi.claranet.fr
>
> How accurate is the information on that web?
>
> Anything else to take care of?
>
> Thanks in advance
> ===
> Paco
