Why not go after the FS APIs so you can simply read the remaining
good blocks? Might it work already if you had a client that skipped
a block if it found a missing one (via error/exception)? Or create
empty blocks...
On May 1, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Yoram Arnon wrote:
+1.
Files that are moved are inaccessible by normal means and there's
little
reason to keep two copies of them around. A sys-admin could later
either
remove them, or try to reassemble them and return them into place.
Leaving
them in their original location just makes it harder to clean them
up.
Corrupted files are not left in their original location, if a -move
option is specified. Fsck does not produce two copies either. As
Hairong wrote, corrupted files are copied block by block to lost
+found, and then removed from their original location; at the same
time fsck tries to glue together consecutive blocks to minimize the
number of remaining parts.
Yes, it is expensive. Perhaps we should add another option to -
move, namely -recover. -move would just move corrupted files to lost
+found using the namespace change, and -recover would try to
recover remaining parts.
--
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki <><
___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com
