Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 03:12:36 -0700 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com Subject: Re: QMail and SoftUpdates Message-ID: <20040518101236.GB7186@VARK.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <200405180428.i4I4SH7E019389@gw.catspoiler.org> References: <16552.64697.572176.262372@laputa.namesys.com> <200405180428.i4I4SH7E019389@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 17, 2004, Don Lewis wrote:
> Based on the information I found using Google, it appears that qmail
> relies on link(2) being synchronous to let it know that a queued message
> is safely on the disk with a known file name before it issues the "250"
> response. I believe this was true without softupdates, but with
> softupdates enabled it is definitely not true.
If this is true, it's a boog in qmail[1]. The link(2) syscall
guarantees atomicity, but not durability. This is why fsync(2)
exists.
[1] I would call it a ``bug'', but then I would be uttering one of
the magic phrases to invoke djb in a public forum.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040518101236.GB7186>