On Montag, 19. Juli 2010 Alex Elder wrote: > Assuming your single head is still in good enough shape > to understand this, here's a high-level (though imprecise) > explanation. Thank you Alex for the summary, but that was the part I understood. I didn't understand the in-depth explanation later, where XFS internals were described. But I guess it's not something I must understand. The short summary is: XFS will be faster, but really shouldn't crash when using delayed logging. It will be interesting to see what happens on a busy system during a crash. Deleted files will appear again, some file changes won't be committed, and again the big problem: some config files might be gone as the rename/recreate transaction will not be done safe via fsync, and people will cry. The plus in performance might be worth it. Can someone guess the exact problems that can happen with delayed transaction on a crash? -- mit freundlichen Grüssen, Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc it-management Internet Services http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee] Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 ****** Aktuelles Radiointerview! ****** http://www.it-podcast.at/aktuelle-sendung.html // Wir haben im Moment zwei Häuser zu verkaufen: // http://zmi.at/langegg/ // http://zmi.at/haus2009/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
