:On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ilia Chipitsine wrote:
:> as far as I remember ext2 has some "counter". I used to use Linux and
:> it performed 'fsck' from time to time (even if fs was clearly unmounted).
:> that is a very good thing to have.
:
:And it's a good thing because ... well, maybe because it's not that
:reliable an FS. I actually can't see it as a good thing if you have a file
:system that doesn't need it. 
:
:> I do not recall that FreeBSD did such thing.
:
:It might not have needed to. It never has in five years for me.
:
:The numbers are from my old job at sarnoff, see my web page ... for a
:while in 1997-99 we had "things go wrong" about once a month. Over the
:space of 18 months as "things went wrong" we found ourselves having to fix
:at least one Linux box each time. On average it was four.
:
:> I DID lose FFS even it was mounted "sync", not async.
:
:I guess I was lucky :-)
:
:anyway, I'll drop this thread, just trying to fill in some info. 
:
:ron

    To be fair, the counter gizmo for ext2fs was from a time many years ago
    when ext2fs was not all that reliable.  I believe ext2fs has gotten quite
    a bit more reliable in the last year though.   Also it is no longer
    as simple as it was originally.  It turns out there's a reason for 
    UFS/FFS's complexity.  The linux crowd has similar problems with their
    'simpler' swap and VM subsystems.  But before people start smirking keep
    in mind that linux is quite a bit farther ahead of us in the SMP 
    department.

    When Kirk gets his softupdates/filesystem-checkmarking code working we
    are going to be a step up from anything linux could hope to accomplish
    in the filesystem arena because we will then be able to reliably dump,
    checkmark, AND sanity-check the filesystem on a live (and busy) system.

                                        -Matt
                                        Matthew Dillon 
                                        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Reply via email to