xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and filesytem shutdown (was: Red Hat Linux 9 XFS DVD Released)

To: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS and filesytem shutdown (was: Red Hat Linux 9 XFS DVD Released)
From: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:18:54 +0200
Cc: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, chris@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <3E9EC641.6050901@xxxxxxxxxxx> <3E9F7422.4060108@xxxxxxxxxx> <3E9F87D8.6070904@xxxxxxxxxxx> <3EA01003.6090604@xxxxxxxxxx> <1050851772.2928.2.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3EA5FDDC.6090707@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20030423064110.GA3172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:43:40PM -0500, Russell Cattelan wrote:

I think the problem it when the files are copied to /boot/grub and not necessarily
when grub is installed.
I still thing the best it to do a remount,ro then a remount,rw
the remount read only code has special code to sync the fs.


I still wonder what is different at install time vs later. Why doesn't the XFS
/boot cope with that correctly, and why should XFS later do the right thing
with /usr /home etc.?

I don't want to sound negative, I like to use XFS, but this makes me feel very
uncomfortable. :(

I get the same feeling - Why doesn't the filesystem push data and metadata to disk when it gets a sync? It surely can't be a "performance"
thing?

// Stefan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>