On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 08:51:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Yes, but they are still atomic from a user and crash recovery > point of view.... I can't see how we can guarantee an atomic update for them, both in the case of an I/O error and an actual system crash. > Well, I think it's a bit different to the directory block case - the > directory blocks are filesystem metadata, while xattrs contain user > data. Hence if we log user xattrs a user can consume all of the log > bandwidth writing xattrs and degrade the metadata modification > performance of the rest of the filesystem. We're getting close to do that with namespace modifications with all your scalability work :) I think that's a point to consider, but not really black and white. It just makes it a bit easier to consume log bandwith, and increases the need to have some form of per-user quotas for this sort of operations. > So, IMO, the first question we need to answer is whether the current > behaviour is actually a problem for anyone.... I've not heard of real life problems, but an interfaces that has very nice behavior for the common case, but a much less optimal for a corner cases is bound to cause trouble. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
