[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D0A3D6.4000300@ursus.ath.cx>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:49:58 +0200
From: "Andreas T.Auer" <andreas.t.auer_lkml_73537@...us.ath.cx>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: "Andreas T.Auer" <andreas.t.auer_lkml_73537@...us.ath.cx>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29
On 30.03.2009 11:05 Alan Cox wrote:
>> It seems you still didn't get the point. ext3 data=ordered is not the
>> problem. The problem is that the average developer doesn't expect the fs
>> to _re-order_ stuff. This is how most common fs did work long before
>>
>
> No it isn´t. Standard Unix file systems made no such guarantee and would
> write out data out of order. The disk scheduler would then further
> re-order things.
>
>
You surely know that better: Did fs actually write "later" data quite
long before "earlier" data? During the flush data may be re-ordered, but
was it also _done_ outside of it?
> If you think the ¨guarantees¨ from before ext3 are normal defaults you´ve
> been writing junk code
>
>
I'm still on ReiserFS since it was considered stable in some SuSE 7.x.
And I expected it to be fairly ordered, but as a network protocol
programmer I didn't rely on the ordering of fs write-outs yet.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists