From: "Robert Comer" 

>Consistant Concurrent Update sounds like it would cause all sorts of
>problems for some handy functions like

I don't think it would, think of it more like a disk cache than anything,
the cache notices when you're trying to read something that was just
written so either it blocks the read until it has been written, or it will
supply the read with what is in the cache.  I don't see TxF doing any
different...

--
Bob Comer


"Geo"  wrote in message
news:442a09a6{at}w3.... I'm not sure I like TxF, the thing they call 
Consistant Concurrent Update sounds like it would cause all sorts of
problems for some handy functions like

tail -f filename

this sounds like it's a service that's constantly running on top of the
file system, that would make it the sort of thing I usually turn off. (like
windows file protection)

Geo.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:4428ab74{at}w3....
     Transaction support is not the same as the rollback in case of a system
crash.  Transactions provide quite a bit more.  See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/fileio/fs/what
_is_transactional_ntfs_.asp
for more info.

  Rich

    "Geo"  wrote in message news:4428a3e8{at}w3....
    "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:442771db$1{at}w3....

    > I think the keywords in the link below are "allows all file operations
on
    an
    > NTFS file system volume to be performed transactionally" . An
application
    > through a standard API would be able to group file operations into a
    > transaction and commit or abort.  It appears to be yet another step in
    > database - file system convergence.

    It sounds the same to me with the difference being that they exposed the
    functionality to programs now so it can be monitored by something other
than
    the OS. W2K NTFS allows the OS to roll back a transaction that failed,
it
    just did it automatically.

    Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5