| |||||||||||||
Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problemTs'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problemPosted Mar 16, 2009 10:46 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525)In reply to: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem by njs Parent article: Ts'o: Delayed allocation and the zero-length file problem
I'm curious, too. I thought btrfs did it right, by being COW-logging of data&metadata and having data=ordered mandatory, with all the explication in the FAQ that make complete sense (correct checksums in the metadata also mean correct data). Now Chris Mason tells us he didn't? Ok, this will be fixed in 2.6.30, and for now, we all don't expect that btrfs is perfect. We expect bugs to be fixed; and that's going on well. IMHO a robust file system should preserve data operation ordering, so that a file system after a crash follows the same consistency semantics as during operation (and during operation, POSIX is clear about consistency). Delaying metadata updates until all data is committed to disk at the update points should actually speed things up, not slow them down, since there is an opportunity to coalesce several metadata updates into single writes without seeks (delayed inode allocation e.g. can allocate all new inodes into a single consecutive block, delayed directory name allocation all new names into consecutive data, as well).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||