| |||||||||||||
This is a regressionThis is a regressionPosted Mar 15, 2009 21:09 UTC (Sun) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: This is a regression by nix Parent article: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem
So, when the spec says that applications need to call fsync to get data down on disk and they don't, that's going _beyond_ the standard? Sorry, that's falling short of it, ignoring it.
Of course, Ted put hacks into ext4 because application writers missed the above and it will take time to fix it. That's called a workaround.
(Log in to post comments)
This is a regression Posted Mar 15, 2009 23:50 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Er, no, 'going beyond the standard' is what *ext4* should do; i.e. it
should arrange that even if an app does something under which POSIX *permits* data loss, that data loss is still considered bad and should be avoided.
Agreed the apps are buggy, but I think this is a deficiency in POSIX,
This is a regression Posted Mar 16, 2009 0:17 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
> Er, no, 'going beyond the standard' is what *ext4* should do
And that's going to help the broken application running on another filesystem exactly how? The problem with hypocrisy here is not related to ext4 - it related to application code.
BTW, it is obvious that Ted already decided to make sure ext4 does that. The man is not stupid - he doesn't want the file system rejected over this - no matter how wrong the people blaming ext4 for this are.
> Agreed the apps are buggy, but I think this is a deficiency in POSIX, rather than anything else.
Well, yeah - the spec is, shall we say - demanding. But, it is what it is. We tell Microsoft not to ignore the specs. What makes us so special that we can? I would suggest nothing. If we take the right to demand that from Microsoft, we should make sure we do it ourselves.
This is a regression Posted Mar 16, 2009 1:07 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
OK, so you consider 'do not want to lose data' to be 'hypocrisy'.
There's no point talking to you at all, IMNSHO.
This is a regression Posted Mar 16, 2009 2:19 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
No, I consider telling others to do something and then not doing it ourselves hypocrisy. It think that would be the definition of it, no?
If you don't want to talk to me, then don't. That's OK.
This is a regression Posted Mar 16, 2009 13:45 UTC (Mon) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
>> Er, no, 'going beyond the standard' is what *ext4* should do
> And that's going to help the broken application running on another filesystem exactly how?
It's not. We are talking about fixing problems users start to experience when they switch from ext3 to ext4. None of the other goals, such as fixing all the apps, making all filesystems happy, feeding the hungry and making world a better place are being pursued here. The 2.6.30 fixes do what they are supposed to do, without breaking anything else. So it is a good thing, and I don't understand why you seem to be against it.
Sure, there's lots of stuff which ain't working right, but it's not a subject here. World's not perfect, and it's not going to be any time soon.
|
|||||||||||||