|To:||"Russell Cattelan" <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: XFS null files|
|From:||"Jeff Briggs" <ephemeral.elusive@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:14:23 +0100|
|Domainkey-signature:||a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JdzSAoWuO4etMgwGkFECtaDVHZ97oDO9+mEHS7Wcxkq/8k4VN0Xw4LoQRW3mvxyrDI2iv/MLatknFY9adDB4WvZiziDUrOho94P3O1cATWwsvP0JXgxhLmWfvzafn+/Ag1QsA6EU+lbMVXxoX/tXXsD2hq4ztlNwAOMFLCAj8eU=|
On 06/08/06, Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Check to see if you have this change http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/xfs-linux/xfs_vnodeops.c.diff?r1=1.675;r2=1.676;f=h I helps reduce the null file problem.
i do not.
> emacs claims to fsync on write, yet still I lost data, the faq > suggests I should not have if this is so? > > Is this likely to be fixed soon, or should I switch file system? Any caching file system could potentially loose data, XFS just happens to get the file size correct so you end up with a file that is nothing but a hole. Other file system would probably just give you an empty file. Either way data in cache always has the potential for being lost. Running xfs in full sync mode would be safest but you loose many performance advantages... so it always a trade off of performance vs data integrity.
it's really ugly how the default is not safe. i didn't have my write cache disabled, but it is now. thanks for the responses.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: 2.6.18-rc3-git3 - XFS - BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000078, Jan Engelhardt|
|Next by Date:||Re: kernel BUG at <bad filename>:50307!, Nathan Scott|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: XFS null files, Russell Cattelan|
|Next by Thread:||TAKE 952342 - xfsprogs, Nathan Scott|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|