Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Transactional\s+XFS\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: Grozdan <neutrino8@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:15:46 +0100
Hi, I just finished watching the excellent speech of Dave Chinner at linux.conf.au and I must say I'm impressed by the recent improvements to XFS. Towards the end of the talk, Dave talked about upcom
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00367.html (7,042 bytes)

2. Re: Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:22:37 +1100
What do you mean by "fully atomic"? NTFS is not fully atomic - it doesn't journal data so can lose data on a crash - so I'm not sure what you mean here.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00379.html (7,329 bytes)

3. Re: Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:01:01 +1100
There's another API in Windows that's let you do operations in a all-or-nothing way. Originally this was scoped to be able to just add a couple of API calls to the Windows file API and have it all "j
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00380.html (9,628 bytes)

4. Re: Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:43:38 +1100
Oh, so making some set of random user changes to random user data have ACID properties? That's what databases are for, isn't it? :P I dont see us implementing anything like this in XFS anytime soon.
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00381.html (11,049 bytes)

5. Re: Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:38:02 +1100
Yep :) The worst part is working out the semantics as to not break existing apps (without completely sacrificing concurrency). The downside being you also roll back your logs and any other changes ma
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00382.html (9,581 bytes)

6. Re: Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:42:30 +1100
That doesn't seem like a show stopper to me. The part that I see is that it is basically impossible to do arbitrarily large transactions in a filesystem - they are limited by the size of the log. e.g
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00384.html (11,545 bytes)

7. Re: Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:01:42 +0100
You could argue if it is NTFS doing the work at all. I glanced over a document describing it, and as far as i remember the KTM-Component does all the work and stores the changes into a specialized da
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00391.html (9,535 bytes)

8. Re: Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: pg_xf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:10:19 +0000
[ ... ] I am going to use this and in particular "That's what databases are for, isn't it?" as a quote to throw at people who try to use filesystems as database managers, usually with very many very
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00405.html (9,255 bytes)

9. Re: Transactional XFS? (score: 1)
Author: Stewart Smith <stewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:40:21 +1100
We have this problem too. none of the solutions are particularly pretty, and certainly do have a performance impact. As I said... it's tricky to solve all the problems :) -- Stewart Smith
/archives/xfs/2012-02/msg00410.html (10,288 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu