From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q1G5c6fb229272 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:38:06 -0600 Received: from kaylee.flamingspork.com (kaylee.flamingspork.com [74.207.245.61]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 4UE39fnC91ibeU9D for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:38:05 -0800 (PST) From: Stewart Smith Subject: Re: Transactional XFS? In-Reply-To: <20120216014338.GX14132@dastard> References: <20120216002237.GW14132@dastard> <87k43nzj5e.fsf@flamingspork.com> <20120216014338.GX14132@dastard> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:38:02 +1100 Message-ID: <87ehtvz6bp.fsf@flamingspork.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Dave Chinner Cc: Grozdan , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:43:38 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Oh, so making some set of random user changes to random user data > have ACID properties? That's what databases are for, isn't it? :P Yep :) > I dont see us implementing anything like this in XFS anytime soon. > We are looking to add transaction grouping so that we can make > things that currently require multiple transactions (e.g. create a > file, add a default ACL) atomic, but I don't have any plans to > open the can of worms that is userspace controlled transactions any > time soon. The worst part is working out the semantics as to not break existing apps (without completely sacrificing concurrency). > We already have this upgrade rollback functionality in development > with none of that complexity - it uses filesystem snapshots so is > effectively filesystem independent and already works with yum and > btrfs. You don't need any special application support for this - > rollback from a failed upgrade is as simple as a reboot. The downside being you also roll back your logs and any other changes made during that time. On the whole though, it's probably sufficient. > Sure, Microsoft have been trying to make their filesystem a database > for years. It's theoretically possible, but in practice they've > fallen short in every attempt in the past 15 years. err... try 20 years :) It's funny in a way, sqlite succeeds at effectively doing this for an awful large number of applications. -- Stewart Smith _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs