From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ec54f885871452ae412b87c87aee99f8@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:26:51 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <84f39b4fe2fa4ddabe63c68d966743d4@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] fossil 'halt' command?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: da74b712-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon Apr 13 18:55:24 EDT 2009, forsyth@terzarima.net wrote:
> i'd have thought that soft updates ensure consistency,
> but a halt command ensures that all the changes are actually written.

i think your point is a good one and definately true
(and begs the question of disk caches), but given the paper,
one does wonder.  halt didn't show up until here
	http://9fans.net/archive/2003/04/218
but there are later notes, e.g.,
	http://9fans.net/archive/2003/11/66
that fossil was a bit difficult to shutdown cleanly.
i'm not sure if that was in reference to the chicken-and-egg
nature of the fossil/venti shutdown process or a problem
with fossil.

- erik