On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
worth the effort.
Most users seem to care deeply about things just work. Here is why
ntfs-3g also took the
On Tue 2008-01-15 20:36:16, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:24:27 -0500
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad
if the disk is not engineered to save
On Jan 17, 2008 7:29 AM, Szabolcs Szakacsits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly to ZFS, Windows Server 2008 also has self-healing NTFS:
I guess that is enough votes to justify going ahead and trying an
implementation of the reverse mapping ideas I posted. But of course
more votes for this is
Hi!
Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
cares about online fsck?
I'm not the world's spokeperson (yet ;-).
Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
worth the effort.
ext3's lets fsck on every 20 mounts is good idea, but it can be
annoying when
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:43:25AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
ext3 is not the only filesystem that will have trouble due to
volatile write caches. We see problems often enough with XFS
due to volatile write caches that it's in our FAQ:
In fact it will hit every filesystem. A write-back cache
On Jan 16, 2008 3:49 AM, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ext3's lets fsck on every 20 mounts is good idea, but it can be
annoying when developing. Having option to fsck while filesystem is
online takes that annoyance away.
I'm sure everyone on cc: knows this, but for the record you can
Alan Cox wrote:
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
It would be awfully nice to know which brands fail here, if any,
On Jan 15, 2008 22:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
With a filesystem that is compartmentalized and checksums metadata,
I believe that an online fsck is absolutely worth having.
Instead of the filesystem resorting to mounting the whole volume
read-only on certain errors, part of the filesystem
Hi!
What are ext3 expectations of disk (is there doc somewhere)? For
example... if disk does not lie, but powerfail during write damages
the sector -- is ext3 still going to work properly?
Nope. However the few disks that did this rapidly got firmware updates
because there are other
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:16:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
What are ext3 expectations of disk (is there doc somewhere)? For
example... if disk does not lie, but powerfail during write damages
the sector -- is ext3 still going to work properly?
Nope. However the few disks
Hi!
What are ext3 expectations of disk (is there doc somewhere)? For
example... if disk does not lie, but powerfail during write damages
the sector -- is ext3 still going to work properly?
Nope. However the few disks that did this rapidly got firmware updates
because there
On Jan 15, 2008 6:07 PM, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had write cache enabled on my main computer. Oops. I guess that
means we do need better documentation.
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
It would be awfully nice to know which brands fail here, if any,
because writeback
On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
It would be awfully nice
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:24:27 -0500
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad
if the disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on
power loss, using the disk
Hi Pavel,
Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
worth the effort.
Regards,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:44:38 -0500
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
worth the effort.
With a filesystem that is compartmentalized and checksums
17 matches
Mail list logo
