[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ext3 and chattr +S on postfix spools

Yusuf Goolamabbas wrote:
> Maybe there is an opening for "mtafs" :) which would have the semantics
> which the MTA authors want and reasonable features which are useful to
> others [journalling,speed,io-clustering,etc]

Queston is: what do the MTA authors want?  We occasionally
see chunks of fuzzily-informed mud come flying over the
wall from MTA lists, but I've yet to see a neat description
of the requirements.

I'd very much like to see such a description, and to have
such a discussion, because we should have a good fit here.

> The question is what precise semantics of ffs does ext3 and
> ffs/softupdate not provide which makes running a MTA on any recent OS
> similar to playing russian roulette with mail

One man's `semantics' is another man's `side-effect' :)
We've never had an objective of retaining side-effect
compatibility with ffs.

In ext3, if you want something sync'ed, you sync it.

Now we do have a useful side-effect, and that is that if
you sync something, you've just synced everything which
preceded it.  That's not a thing which is going to change
in the 2.4 kernel timeframe, and I doubt that it'll ever change,
given that it's the most efficient way of handling any pending
write data.

Still.  Please: what are the requirements for MTAs, and for

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]