| |||||||||||||
ext4 and data lossext4 and data lossPosted Mar 13, 2009 1:16 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: ext4 and data loss by quotemstr Parent article: ext4 and data loss
> And before you tell me that's bad design: I disagree. A file system is meant to manage files.
I don't think that's bad design either. It is very useful to build an XML tree from many small files (e.g. gconf), instead of putting everything into one big one, which, if corrupted, will bring everything down.
> The whole thing is still safe because if the system dies at any point, each of the 200 configuration files will either refer to the complete old file or the complete new file, never some NULL-filled or zero-length strangelet.
I think that's the bit Ted was complaining about. It is unusual that changes to hundreds of configuration files would have to be done all at once. Users usually change a few things at a time (which would then be OK with fsync), so this must be some kind of automated thing doing it.
But, yeah, I understand what you're getting at in terms of performance of many fsync calls in a row.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||