| |||||||||||||
Better than POSIX?Better than POSIX?Posted Mar 18, 2009 2:28 UTC (Wed) by vaurora (guest, #38407)In reply to: Better than POSIX? by jeleinweber Parent article: Better than POSIX?
Soft updates are brilliant - so brilliant that I'd only want to support a file system using them if I could first clone a bunch of Kirk McKusicks to maintain it.
(Log in to post comments)
Better than POSIX? Posted Mar 18, 2009 2:39 UTC (Wed) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]
Why? The concept isn't that complicated.
soft updates Posted Mar 18, 2009 5:15 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
The concept isn't complicated, but the implementation is fragile.
Better than POSIX? Posted Mar 19, 2009 9:58 UTC (Thu) by joern (subscriber, #22392) [Link]
Assuming an FFS-style filesystem I agree with you. To my knowledge I have done the only other implementation of soft updates. And it hardly resembles the original because 95% or more of the complexity doesn't exist. Put another way, I could only pull it off by first changing the rules (aka cheating).
|
|||||||||||||