On 18 Jun 2004, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2004 13:23 +0200, Petter Larsen wrote:
>> But think of your scenario of copy, delete and make a new file with the
>> new content. First we copy the contents of the file, then we do our
>> modifications. When we are done we delete the original file. Then we hit
>> a crash. The content we had of the file in our process are gone, the
>> original file is deleted. This is not a good idea. But if we write the new
>> file first as fileX.new and den delete fileX, hit a crash then we would
>> have at least the correct file written as fileX.new.
>
> The rename operation is guaranteed to be atomic. You implement updates as:
> 1) create new file
> 2) write data to new file
> 3) rename new file over old filename
Step three in this chain has always puzzled me: is there some "atomic
rename" that I have missed, or is this really:
3) unlink (or rename away) old filename
4) rename new filename to old filename
Daniel
--
I refused to attend his funeral. But I wrote a very nice letter
explaining that I approved of it.
-- Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
