ivoras

...and trivially jammable

Speaking of keyboard shortcuts, I miss BSD's Ctrl-T and SIGINFO. It often helped to see if a process was hung.

Oh, that's easy: "founder mode" means the founder is hyperfocused (or in the oldspeak, obsessed) on his work (with his company) and optimizes (micromanages) everything. We know that already. Perfection demands micromanagement. Steve Jobs was actually doing that - reaching down the ranks and directly helping (molesting) people doing some piece of a larger product he particularly cared about.

It also often causes (or is caused by) eccentric behavior (or mental issues) - but it's been done since forever, and when it's successful, we call it "visionary." When it's not, we call it "toxic."

Does it support multiple brokers within the same projects? As in can I use both Kafka and RabbitMQ with it?

It's curious to see how times have changed. Soft-updates are indeed a very clever solution to the problem of file system consistency in the face of possible failures like OS crashes or power outages.

While journaling "simply" writes a journal of FS ops to a continuous area of the drive (especially important for mechanical drives) which is fsynced faster than random writes across platters, Soft-updates opts to be really clever with the way FS ops ordered, so that what's actually on the drive is always consistent, even with decent amount of write caching. It doesn't guard file content, though, just the file system itself.

Soft-updates is what enabled the BSD's to support short-lived files never touching the physical drive. You could create a file, write to it, read it, close and delete it, and if this was done in a reasonably short amount of time, no writes whatsoever got to the actual hardware. It was wonderful with software which used to generate a lot of temp files, like building C software.

OTOH, if a write got trough to the hard drive, Soft-updates guaranteed that file system structures get written in a way so that if an OS crash or a power failure happened at any single time, the only downside could be some unreferenced blocks, which could be garbage collected later; assuming hardware doesn't lie about fsync, of course...

I think ext4 supports this kind of short-lived-files-never-touch-the-drive caching.