rename open_issues.mdwn to service_solahart_jakarta_selatan__082122541663.mdwn

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 39 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/rm_fr.mdwn b/open_issues/rm_fr.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index aab52d97..00000000
--- a/open_issues/rm_fr.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_hurd]]
-
-From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
-Subject: rm -fr slowness
-
-I have always been surprised by the slowness of a mere rm -fr. Looking a
-bit inside, I see that diskfs_dirremove_hard() calls diskfs_file_update
-(dp, 1) (as does diskfs_truncate, diskfs_direnter_hard, and
-diskfs_dirrewrite_hard). diskfs_file_update then calls pager_sync on
-the pager, which thus writes back the whole ext2fs pager!
-
-This sounds a bit excessive to me, an unlink could just record it in
-memory and actually sync later.  Also, the wait flag is set, so we
-really waits for all I/Os, which basically means strictly serializing
-file removals: remove one file, wait for the disk to have done it
-(~10ms), remove the next one, etc.  I guess this is for safety reasons
-against crashes, but isn't the sync option there for such kind of
-
-
-# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-23
-
-    <antrik> youpi: hm... async deletion does have one downside: I just removed
-      something to make space, and retried the other command immediately
-      afterwards, and it still said "no space left on device"... a few seconds
-      later (after the next regular sync I suppose?) it worked
-    <youpi> well, that's sorta expected, yes
-    <youpi> we get the same on Linux
-    <youpi> Mmm, on second thought, I'm not sure how that can happen
-    <youpi> the asynchronous thing is for disk writes, not cache writes