<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Systems on Experiment, Fail, Learn, Repeat</title>
    <link>https://www.hairizuan.com/categories/systems/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Systems on Experiment, Fail, Learn, Repeat</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026 Hairizuan Noorazman</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 10:01:23 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.hairizuan.com/categories/systems/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    <item>
      <title>Modern Filesystems: Journaling vs Copy-on-Write, the Kernel Write Path, and Data Correctness</title>
      <link>https://www.hairizuan.com/modern-filesystems-journaling-vs-copy-on-write-the-kernel-write-path-and-data-correctness/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hairizuan.com/modern-filesystems-journaling-vs-copy-on-write-the-kernel-write-path-and-data-correctness/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;When engineers discuss storage and file systems, the conversation often starts and stops with the classics: &lt;code&gt;ext4&lt;/code&gt; on Linux, &lt;code&gt;NTFS&lt;/code&gt; on Windows, and perhaps &lt;code&gt;XFS&lt;/code&gt; for large database servers. For decades, the dominant answer to filesystem reliability was straightforward: &lt;strong&gt;journaling&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
