From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Status of fsync() wrt mail servers Date: 10 Sep 2003 07:14:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1063192474.18154.355.camel@tiny.suse.com> References: <20030910002953.C14172@unbeatenpath.net> <20030910105102.GA535@rahul.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030910105102.GA535@rahul.net> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Bennett Todd Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 06:51, Bennett Todd wrote: > 2003-09-10T01:29:53 lists@unbeatenpath.net: > > I'm in the process of researching OSes and filesystems for a new mail > > system. I'm hoping to use linux+reiserfs+postfix, and I'm wondering > > where reiserfs stands wrt to fsync(). Does reiserfs provide a mechanism > > to have truly synchronous writes with a single fsync() call? Thanks > > I'm not really fond of the phrase "truly synchronous writes"; it can > be read different ways by different people. > > What postfix demands (if you wish to adhere strictly to some > peoples' interpretations of RFCs) is that when fsync returns, the > filesystem guarantees that even if there's a crash an instant after, > the file, data as well as metadata, will be intact when the machine > comes up again. This is in support of a desire to positively commit > to the sender that the receiving MTA has accepted receipt for a > message. This is what reiserfs does, the metadata is on disk after an fsync, including any renames. -chris