From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: filesystem transactions API Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:14:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20050426141426.GC10833@mail.shareable.org> References: <20050424211942.GN13052@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050426134629.GU16169@viasys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:6057 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261539AbVDZOOe (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:14:34 -0400 To: Ville Herva Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050426134629.GU16169@viasys.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ville Herva wrote: > Apparently, Windows Longhorn will include something called "transactional > NTFS". It's explained pretty well in > > http://blogs.msdn.com/because_we_can/ > > Basically, a process can create a fs transaction, and all fs changes made > between start of the transaction and commit are atomical - meaning nothing > is visible until commit, and if commit fails, everything is rolled back. > > Sound useful... Although there are no service pack installs that could fail > in Linux, the same thing could be useful in rpm, yum, almost anything. > > What do you think? I think I've wanted something like that for _years_ in unix. It's an old, old idea, and I've often wondered why we haven't implemented it. -- Jamie