Re: Safe File Update (atomic)
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Enrico Weigelt <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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),
> 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.