On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, Ric. Yes, we are numbered among the "annoying users". Based on what you are telling us, we'll recommend that people use data="" barrier=1 for maximum data reliability in the face of power loss.
On 12/08/2010 06:52 AM, Dan Kennedy wrote:Data integrity can mean a couple of different things.
Thanks. But to be clear, is data="" better than data=""> wrt. data integrity following a power failure?
Regards,
Dan.
If you are file system meta-data centric (i.e., a file system developer or just worried about having to run fsck after a crash to repair the file system), then both options *should* be equivalent.
If you are one of those annoying users who define data integrity to include those annoying details like will my file have garbage in it after a crash that will make my DB or other app puke, then data ordered is clearly more robust.
Thanks, Ric. Yes, we are numbered among the "annoying users". Based on what you are telling us, we'll recommend that people use data="" barrier=1 for maximum data reliability in the face of power loss.
Note that most distributions (including RHEL) support & focus testing only ordered mode....
Hope this helps :)
Ric
_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
--
D. Richard Hipp
drh@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ Ext3-users mailing list Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
