Absolutely true. Then, there's "stable", which means
no loss (with respect to acknowledged file ops, ala
NFS stability rules). You've rather forcefully made
my point. Not really worth quibiling about which
kind of loss is acceptable or unacceptable. The goal,
really, is commercially accepted standard of stability.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tech-kern-owner@NetBSD.org [mailto:tech-kern-owner@NetBSD.org]On
> Behalf Of der Mouse
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:32 PM
> To: tech-kern@NetBSD.org
> Subject: Re: namei caching of newly created files?
> 
> 
> > IMO, once NFS rules are conceded, might was well go hog wild with
> > write-back caching.  Why not.  Loss is loss.
> 
> But there's loss and then there's loss.  There's loss as in "if you
> lose power the file being created has garbaged contents".  There's loss
> as in "if you lose power the directory the file is being created in is
> trashed".  And then there's loss as in "if you lose power you might as
> well re-newfs - and hope your backups are good".
> 
> /~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
> \ / Ribbon Campaign
>  X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
> / \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
>