From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q1G0Mfcr214890 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:22:41 -0600 Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id MLUWYwbTO1hbS0kI for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:22:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:22:37 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: Transactional XFS? Message-ID: <20120216002237.GW14132@dastard> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Grozdan Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 08:15:46PM +0100, Grozdan wrote: > Hi, > > I just finished watching the excellent speech of Dave Chinner at > linux.conf.au and I must say I'm impressed by the recent improvements > to XFS. Towards the end of the talk, Dave talked about upcoming > improvements on Metadata reliability and other features. What I'm > wondering about is if there are any plans in making XFS transactional > (fully atomic) like it is the case with recent NTFS versions on > Windows Vista and higher? What do you mean by "fully atomic"? NTFS is not fully atomic - it doesn't journal data so can lose data on a crash - so I'm not sure what you mean here.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs