Subject: Re: Log area on-disk for the journal
To: Michael van Elst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 10/23/2006 17:16:14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 10:38:35PM +0200, Michael van Elst wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:21:33PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:59:08PM +0200, Michael van Elst wrote:
> > > So how does the rest of the world do it?
> > They probably have hooks and steps to cover the problems we're talking=
> > about.
> My guess is that, at least for Solaris, the journal isn't used
> to allow operations that can't be recovered by fsck. The operations
> are identical, wether logging is enabled or not.
But that's the point of journaling.
Making operations fsck'able means doing the whole operation as a sequence=
of steps and waiting for individual steps to be written before continuing.=
The point of journaling is to get around the sequence; we do the whole=20
thing at once and use a two-stage commit to make it safe.
So the "journaling" that would match what you describe above isn't really=
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----