Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.misc:29306 comp.os.386bsd.misc:4035 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.uwa.edu.au!nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au!netbsd08.dn.itg.telecom.com.au!orca1.vic.design.telecom.com.au!picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au!newshost!chrisb From: chrisb@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Chris Bitmead) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: LINUX SUCKS!!!! Date: 10 Nov 94 12:57:24 Organization: Telecom Australia - CSSC Lines: 73 Distribution: world Message-ID: <CHRISB.94Nov10125724@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> References: <085334Z20101994@anon.penet.fi> <385viv$8r4@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <CHRISB.94Nov1123540@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> <39mk0hINN1uab@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au In-reply-to: se@fileserv1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE's message of 8 Nov 1994 01:24:33 GMT In article <39mk0hINN1uab@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> se@fileserv1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (Stefan Esser) writes: >In article <CHRISB.94Nov1123540@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>, chrisb@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Chris Bitmead) writes: >|> In article <38up48INN1o5e@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> se@FileServ1.MI.Uni-Koeln.DE (Stefan Esser) writes: >|> >|> >The filesystem is one of the parts, where >|> >BSD is far more advanced than Linux, in >|> >both speed and robustness (nobody in their >|> >right mind would use the option to switch >|> >off synchronous metadata updates under BSD, >|> >since this might void your filesystem in >|> >case of a crash, as is the default under >|> >Linux). >|> >|> Nobody in their right mind would want it turned on since it could cause >|> crap meta-data if the system crashes. Better to do it the other way round. >|> Write your data first and then update your meta-data. > >Yes, of course! Were did I write something different ? >Synchronous means "do things ordered", while asynchronous >means "don't care in which order things get done". I think you're a bit confused. Synchronous means "really do this right now before returning". Asynchronous means "do this sometime at your convenience". >The BSD FFS does an fsync() before the (synchronous) metadata >update. I this was the case then it wouldn't be a "synchronous" update would it? >|> >If you want to discuss filesystem features >|> >and pros and cons, feel free to do so. But >|> >please first try to understand what the BSD >|> >FFS does to combine performance, reliability >|> >and economy of disk space use (ie. fragments). >|> >|> Well if you want to discuss pros and cons you should understand what the >|> Linux file system tries to do. Yes, it too has fragments for example. > >Where did I write that it hadn't ? I wrote about the >design goals of the BSD FFS implementation as of BSD 4.2, >some 10 years ago. It was clearly implied that because I was putting a word in for the Linux file system, I was clueless, and should therefore learn about FFS fragments. Otherwise, why bring up the subject of fragments? >|> >Please get your facts right before posting, >|> >since there might be readers of these >|> >newsgroups who might be lead to believe >|> >the nonsense you wrote ... >|> >|> Practice what you preach. > >Yes, I do. And you did not only not read what I wrote, >but also cut out the whole of the silly article, that >was the reason for my reply. Don't call your own articles "silly". :) >The "get your facts right" was directed at the person >who just claimed that BSD systems and the BSD FFS didn't >work reliable at all, and that is total nonsense, as >prooved by a lot of FTP archive sites all around the >world. You made the claim that nobody in their right mind would switch off meta-data writes. I dispute this and still claim that you should get your facts right.