Re: Safe File Update (atomic)
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
>> To me, inodes are an implementation detail that shouldn't be exposed.
>
> Well, they're an fundamental concept which sometimes *IS* significant
> to the applications. It's very different from systems where each
> file has exactly one name (eg. DOS/Windows) or where there're just
> filesnames that point to opaque stream objects that can be virtually
> anything (eg. Plan9).
Sometimes, indeed. This number of times should be as low as possible.
>> > to do a (open+write+close) that is atomic if the target already exists.
>> > Maybe one of those has a better chance than O_ATOMIC.
>> >
>> > It is up to you and the fs developers to find some common ground.
>>
>> The FS devs are happy with all the regressions of the workaround, so
>> they're unlikely to do anything.
>
> Why not designing an new (overlay'ing) filesystem for that ?
Increased complexity, lower performance, little benefit.
Olaf
Reply to: