Subject: Re: Log area on-disk for the journal
To: Michael van Elst <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/23/2006 17:16:14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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?
> >=20
> > 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=

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)