Atomicity vs durability vs reliability
Posted Mar 15, 2009 13:35 UTC (Sun) by man_ls
In reply to: Atomicity vs durability
Parent article: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem
No, you are not all for reliability if you cannot see beyond your little POSIX manual. Or if you don't care about system crashes because the manual is silent about this particular point. Sorry to break it to you: reliability is such little details such as having predictable response to a crash, or surviving the crash while retaining all the nice properties.
I think we should come up with a new API that guarantees what people really want.
APIs are good enough as they are -- we don't need a special "reliability API" so we can build a special "reliability manual" for guys who just follow the book.
We've seen this with XFS.
Nope. What we have seen with XFS is how some anal-retentive developers lost most of their user base while trying to argue such points as "POSIX-compliance", and then they finally give in. With ex4 we are hoping to get to the point where the devs give in before they lose most of their user base. Just because ext4 is important for Linux and for our world domination agenda. Meanwhile you can keep waving the POSIX standard in our face. The POSIX standard seems to be about compatibility, not about reliability, and it should keep playing that role. Reliability is left as an exercise for the attentive reader. Let us hope that Mr Ts'o is attentive and can tell atomicity, reliability and durability apart.
to post comments)