Subject: Re: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>
Date: 07/30/2001 22:37:56
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 01:12:47PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> > But, for this, LFS has an advantage over FFS: data are journalised, so
> > if your machine crash while a write was in progress, you get the database in
> > the previous consistent state.
> > It can also be very usefull for things like mail spool.
> For general databases, the db usually takes care of journalizing. For your
> mailspool, a well-behaved MTA will take steps to force the mailspool to be
> written synchronously.
Yes, but when you're appending a 10M mail you can't guarantee that you
won't be interrupted in the middle of the write, leaving a corrupted
(corrupted because partially written) mailbox on disk.
Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>