| |||||||||||||
ext2, Bruté?ext2, Bruté?Posted Mar 18, 2009 22:57 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)In reply to: Maybe not by man_ls Parent article: Better than POSIX?
I can think of no reason at all why a guarantee of this sort should not be considered desirable for any filesystems that try to ease crash recovery. It may be out of ext2's reach (because its code does not impose a strict partial ordering on disk writes), but it should be achievable as an enhancement to any journaling, log-structured or soft-update filesystem.
(Log in to post comments)
ext2, Bruté? Posted Mar 18, 2009 23:25 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] It is by all means desirable. The proper place for such a standard might be debated though. I have always understood that POSIX is a standard for compatibility, e.g. Wikipedia says:POSIX or "Portable Operating System Interface for Unix"[1] is the collective name of a family of related standards specified by the IEEE to define the application programming interface (API), along with shell and utilities interfaces for software compatible with variants of the Unix operating system, although the standard can apply to any operating system.So I don't know if a standard for reliable file systems would fit in.
|
|||||||||||||