From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:37:56 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <21210844bf0a4816d4de4d5a59bae90a@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BCD85B5.1060404@tecmav.com>
References: <4BCD85B5.1060404@tecmav.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Fossil robustness
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0a89e372-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue Apr 20 06:46:54 EDT 2010, a.verardo@tecmav.com wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I'm building an industrial  application  hosted by several independent
> cpu server, each of them booted from a CFlash on sdD0.
>
> The application doesn't write on sdD0 and there are no redirection on
> local files in the cpurc scripts.
>
> In this particular situation fossil should be actually used read only so
> allowing to use write protected CF and/or to suddenly power off the system without
> damaging the file system.
>
> Instead, fossil writes on sdD0 (doesn't boot fom a write protected CF)
> and the power loss destroy the file system more than fifty-fifty.
>
> Unfortunately I cannot guarantee stable/correct operating conditions.

paqfs(4) seems ideal for this situation.

- erik