Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A database can afford to fsync to ensure consistency, and they've been heavily tested to ensure it works properly. And even then its still possible that the file becomes corrupt, if the OS, or the disk lies about fsync: https://www.sqlite.org/howtocorrupt.html

Has journald been tested on how well it copes with sudden reboots, kernel panics, powerloss, etc.?

When something goes wrong you usually want to be able to still read your logs to figure out what happened, and you may not even be able to boot the system properly.



> Has journald been tested on how well it copes with sudden reboots, kernel panics, powerloss, etc.?

Are you assuming it hasn't been tested in these situations just because you don't know?


Databases have been around a lot longer than systemd, so I assume they are better tested than journald in this regard. I don't use systemd - because Debian doesn't use it (yet) - so it was rather a question for those who do use systemd.

I'm not saying that I'd be happy to have a database as journald backend, I'd be just less concerned.


OK, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

systemd's test suite[1] doesn't seem to cover those cases anyway.

[1]: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/test


I think it has not been tested in these situations enough. It's not in production anywhere major yet.

The assertion is valid IMHO.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: