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

Re: Safe File Update (atomic)

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
>> Not true. Renaming a running executable works just fine, for example.
> Well, has been quite a while since I last used Windows, but IIRC
> renaming an running executable was denied.

Maybe on FAT. However, that's OT.

>> >> > Why not designing an new (overlay'ing) filesystem for that ?
>> >>
>> >> Increased complexity, lower performance, little benefit.
>> >
>> > Why that ? Currently applications (try to) implement that all on
>> > their own, which needs great efforts for multiprocess synchronization.
>> > Having that in a little fileserver eases this sychronization and
>> > moves the complexity to a single point.
>> I mean compared to implementing it properly in the kernel.
> Doing it in the kernel would be fine (maybe DLM could be used here),

What's DLM?

> but would be a nonportable solution for quite a long time ;-o

Since it's the only proper solution I don't think that's a problem.


Reply to: