also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.02.1545 +0200]: > No, it is not. XFS has bad data-ordering-flush semanthics for > resilience, they are superb for speed and performance, NOT for > data safety. It won't guarantee data safety unless you fsync(), > umount or mount -o ro,remount... and it does *not* guarantee data > safety on global sync(), which is what this bug is about.
I suppose you have thought about this before. :) > If you *do* take the time to make sure sync() is NOT flushing > everything XFS to disk, *please* file a bug on kernel.org, > otherwise it will never be fixed where it really matters. Yes. > I still think an hibernate scriptlet to mount partitions readonly > (instead of just umounting them) is a valid, useful wish. And it > would fix the issue with /boot as XFS (but not of / as XFS). Okay. Retitle the bug then? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
