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
Pavel Machek wrote:
On Sat 2008-01-12 09:51:40, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 02:52:14PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic.
Even after a black-out shutdown, the corruption is pretty minimal, using
ext3fs at least.
After a
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 02:52:14PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic.
Even after a black-out shutdown, the corruption is pretty minimal, using
ext3fs at least.
After a unclean shutdown, assuming you have decent
On Sat 2008-01-12 09:51:40, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 02:52:14PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic.
Even after a black-out shutdown, the corruption is pretty minimal, using
ext3fs at least.
After a unclean
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 OS's that
Bodo Eggert wrote:
Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even after a black-out shutdown, the corruption is pretty minimal, using
ext3fs at least. So let's take advantage of this fact and do an
optimistic fsck, to assure integrity per-dir, and assume no external
corruption. Then we release
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 02:52:14PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic.
Even after a black-out shutdown, the corruption is pretty minimal, using
ext3fs at least.
After a unclean shutdown, assuming you have decent hardware that
doesn't
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 01:16, Andreas Dilger wrote:
While an _incremental_ fsck isn't so easy for existing filesystem
types, what is pretty easy to automate is making a read-only snapshot
of a filesystem via LVM/DM and then running e2fsck against that. The
kernel and filesystem have
Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even after a black-out shutdown, the corruption is pretty minimal, using
ext3fs at least. So let's take advantage of this fact and do an optimistic
fsck, to assure integrity per-dir, and assume no external corruption. Then
we release this checked dir to the
Rik van Riel wrote:
Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic.
You can't play fast and loose with data integrity.
Correct, but you have to be realistic...
Besides, if we looked at things optimistically, we would conclude
that no
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:40:12 +0300, Al Boldi said:
But why wouldn't it be possible to do this on the current fs infrastructure,
using just a smart fsck, working incrementally on some sub-dir?
If you have /home/usera, /home/userb, and /home/userc, the vast majority of
fs screw-ups can't be
Andi Kleen wrote:
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, there are good reasons for doing periodic checks every N mounts
and after M months. And it has to do with PC class hardware. (Ted's
aphorism: PC class hardware is cr*p).
If these reasons are good ones (some skepticism here)
Valerie Henson wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 8:40 PM, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has there been some thought about an incremental fsck?
You know, somehow fencing a sub-dir to do an online fsck?
Search for chunkfs
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:52:14 +0300
Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic.
You can't play fast and loose with data integrity.
Besides, if we looked at things optimistically, we would conclude
that no fsck will be needed, ever :)
On Jan 8, 2008 8:40 PM, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has there been some thought about an incremental fsck?
You know, somehow fencing a sub-dir to do an online fsck?
Search for chunkfs
Sure, and there is TileFS too.
But
31 matches
Mail list logo
