Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:28:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:28:12 -0400 Received: from lockupnat.curl.com ([216.230.83.254]:48628 "EHLO egghead.curl.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:28:12 -0400 To: Chris Mason Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ext3 vs Reiserfs benchmarks References: <20020712162306$aa7d@traf.lcs.mit.edu> <20020715173337$acad@traf.lcs.mit.edu> <1026767676.4751.499.camel@tiny> From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" Date: 15 Jul 2002 17:31:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1026767676.4751.499.camel@tiny> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1095 Lines: 22 Chris Mason writes: > Yes, most mtas do this for queue files, I'm not sure how many do it for > the actual spool file. Maybe the control files are small enough to fit in one disk block, making the operations atomic in practice. Or something. > mail server authors are more than welcome to recommend the best > safety/performance combo for their product, and to ask the FS guys > which combinations are safe. Yeah, but it's a shame if those combinations require performance hits like "synchronous directory updates" or, worse, "fsync() == sync()". I really wish MTA authors would just support Linux's "fsync the directory" approach. It is simple, reliable, and fast. Yes, it does require Linux-specific support in the application, but that's what application authors should expect when there is a gap in the standards. - Pat - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/