Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, "Richard Knutsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you referenced to in a reply... TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed. Oh, took it to be from 5-6 sources... + you have repeated the same statement several times, that is not the best way of convincing people. I know you DON'T believe that, as you are about the tenth person to repeat that "repeating stuff has no effect." Why should we change our response to the same error? The only solution to this loop is when people stops answering you and you "lose". I believe you picked up the "anti-Reiser religion"-phrase from previous rant-wars (otherwise, why does that "religion"-phrase always come up, and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing with this matter. NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against Reiser4. Hence the term "anti-Reiser religion." Please, don't address someone you meet for the first time as "you people"! Yes, we do _work_ together, it is a community and as a community you have to follow the social rules agreed upon. Without all those pro-Reiser peoples who knew how to work with the rest, there would not be a ResierFS/Reiser3 in the kernel. Unfortunately, Hans is in this case his own worst enemy and has ruffed quite a few feathers over the time. I don't think you would like someone who tells you "if you do it my way, then you are doing it wrong"... But personally, even if I find Hans a bit too strong-headed, he got some interesting design-ideas and the Reiser-filesystem is something I think many find interesting as a concept but not yet trust-worthy for their own machines. Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage? I might be. I don't really know how to set it all up. Perhaps if you guided me through it. Am not sure how much help I would be but from the responses to your benchmark-list, there seems to be many who could help you. But first I think you should set up a system to test on, and then after some tests and made the result public, there will (most likely) be people who ask you to test it in some specific way. I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it? Yeah, I can't see how the OS could read the love-letter either. But one thing is for sure. The FS ain't responsible for reading it. And no-one has asked the file-system to _read_ the disk, but to be designed to help restore the file-structure. This I have found to be the main-point people complains about. It is like arguing against air-bags in a car. Of course the car should not be responsible for preventing accidents, but they are designed so _if_ it happens, you should not be totally screwed. Yes, it should not assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data? It's a tough ask of any FS. Microsoft's filesystem checker totally roasted all my data on an XP-box last night. Sorry to hear that, but two wrongs does not make it right. Richard Knutsson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:14:18PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against > Reiser4. Poor guy ! People are not against Reiser4, they are against the stupid and irritating person who pollutes the lists always sending the same results without any comment because he doesn't even understand the results. Just like the kid on the beach "Look Ma, I found a soft shell!". "Leave it overthere, it's a jellyfish !". "I don't know what a jellyfish is, I will take all those soft shells with me". You keep saying people do not want to read you, but there is nothing to read. In fact, you hope that people will comment on your results so that you will finally understand them, but people keep saying there is nothing to read there. When will you stop annoying people with your noisy toys ? Oh, and please send your conspiracy claims somewhere else. Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:14:18PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against Reiser4. Poor guy ! People are not against Reiser4, they are against the stupid and irritating person who pollutes the lists always sending the same results without any comment because he doesn't even understand the results. Just like the kid on the beach Look Ma, I found a soft shell!. Leave it overthere, it's a jellyfish !. I don't know what a jellyfish is, I will take all those soft shells with me. You keep saying people do not want to read you, but there is nothing to read. In fact, you hope that people will comment on your results so that you will finally understand them, but people keep saying there is nothing to read there. When will you stop annoying people with your noisy toys ? Oh, and please send your conspiracy claims somewhere else. Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you referenced to in a reply... TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed. Oh, took it to be from 5-6 sources... + you have repeated the same statement several times, that is not the best way of convincing people. I know you DON'T believe that, as you are about the tenth person to repeat that repeating stuff has no effect. Why should we change our response to the same error? The only solution to this loop is when people stops answering you and you lose. I believe you picked up the anti-Reiser religion-phrase from previous rant-wars (otherwise, why does that religion-phrase always come up, and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing with this matter. NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against Reiser4. Hence the term anti-Reiser religion. Please, don't address someone you meet for the first time as you people! Yes, we do _work_ together, it is a community and as a community you have to follow the social rules agreed upon. Without all those pro-Reiser peoples who knew how to work with the rest, there would not be a ResierFS/Reiser3 in the kernel. Unfortunately, Hans is in this case his own worst enemy and has ruffed quite a few feathers over the time. I don't think you would like someone who tells you if you do it my way, then you are doing it wrong... But personally, even if I find Hans a bit too strong-headed, he got some interesting design-ideas and the Reiser-filesystem is something I think many find interesting as a concept but not yet trust-worthy for their own machines. Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage? I might be. I don't really know how to set it all up. Perhaps if you guided me through it. Am not sure how much help I would be but from the responses to your benchmark-list, there seems to be many who could help you. But first I think you should set up a system to test on, and then after some tests and made the result public, there will (most likely) be people who ask you to test it in some specific way. I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it? Yeah, I can't see how the OS could read the love-letter either. But one thing is for sure. The FS ain't responsible for reading it. And no-one has asked the file-system to _read_ the disk, but to be designed to help restore the file-structure. This I have found to be the main-point people complains about. It is like arguing against air-bags in a car. Of course the car should not be responsible for preventing accidents, but they are designed so _if_ it happens, you should not be totally screwed. Yes, it should not assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data? It's a tough ask of any FS. Microsoft's filesystem checker totally roasted all my data on an XP-box last night. Sorry to hear that, but two wrongs does not make it right. Richard Knutsson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, "Richard Knutsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you > referenced to in a reply... TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed. A simple cut and paste error. > You have got some rude answers and you have called them back on it Yeah, I (fairly closely) mimicked their behavior to make a point. > + you have repeated the same statement several times, that is > not the best way of convincing people. I know you DON'T believe that, as you are about the tenth person to repeat that "repeating stuff has no effect." > I believe you picked up the "anti-Reiser religion"-phrase from previous > rant-wars (otherwise, why does that "religion"-phrase always come up, > and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been > some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing > with this matter. NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against Reiser4. Hence the term "anti-Reiser religion." > Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed > binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage? I might be. I don't really know how to set it all up. Perhaps if you guided me through it. > > > > You deliberately ignored the fact that bad blocks are NOT dealt with by > > the filesystem,... but by the operating system. Like I said: If your > > filesystem is writing to bad blocks, then throw away your operating > > system. > > > I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, > screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then > returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for > corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it? Yeah, I can't see how the OS could read the love-letter either. But one thing is for sure. The FS ain't responsible for reading it. > Yes, it should not > assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the > file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data? It's a tough ask of any FS. Microsoft's filesystem checker totally roasted all my data on an XP-box last night. I had used ntfsresize to reduce the partition size and had a power outage. Later, Windows booted, ran the filesystem checker, seemed OK. Next time I boot, all I get is Input/Output error. > > Just my 2c to the pond > Richard Knutsson > Addin my 2c John. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you referenced to in a reply... But dude, please calm down, the caps-lock is not the answer. You have got some rude answers and you have called them back on it + you have repeated the same statement several times, that is not the best way of convincing people. I believe you picked up the "anti-Reiser religion"-phrase from previous rant-wars (otherwise, why does that "religion"-phrase always come up, and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing with this matter. Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage? And document how it is set up so it can be reproduced. After all, Windows is suppose to be more stable, maintained and cost-efficient then Linux, but they don't tell us how ;) since it can't benefit as much from similarity between files. So if that is the case and you really want to save diskspace you almost have to look at read-only compressed filesystems such as cramfs, squashfs, zisofs, cloop and various other variants in combination with a unionfs overlay to get read/write functionality. But in the end everything is a tradeoff. You can save diskspace, but increase the cost of corruption. You deliberately ignored the fact that bad blocks are NOT dealt with by the filesystem,... but by the operating system. Like I said: If your filesystem is writing to bad blocks, then throw away your operating system. I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it? Yes, it should not assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data? Just my 2c to the pond Richard Knutsson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
Christer Weinigel: Until YOU, have actually used the REISER4 filesystem yourself, I think YOU OWE IT to the people on the linux-kernel mailing list, to, AS YOU SAY, shut the fuck up. Even reading up on the REISER4 filesystem would help. Applying a little intelligence would undoubtedly help too. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Lennart. Tell me again that these results from > > > > http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and > > http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm > > > > are not of interest to you. I still don't understand why you > > have your head in the sand. > > Oh, for fucks sake, stop sounding like a broken record. Oh, for fucks sake, would you, and your religious anti-REISER cohorts, stop sounding like a broken record. > You have repeated the same totally meaningless statistics more > times than I care to count. Please shut the fuck up. You, and your religious anti-REISER cohorts, have indeed repeated the same broken arguments (if you can call them such) more times than I care to count. NO statistics, NO real facts, just selective MANIPULATION of facts. > Please shut the fuck up. Yes, why don't you politely, shut the fuck up. Until YOU, have actually used the REISER4 filesystem yourself, I think YOU OWE IT to the people on the linux-kernel mailing list, to shut the fuck up, as YOU say. I guess, the fact that you are a TOTAL HYPOCRITE, has completely escaped you. By the way: Did I thank you "delightful" people for the "pleasant" welcome to the linux-kernel mailing list? - > So the two bonnie benchmarks with lzo and gzip are > totally meaningless for any real life usages. YOU (yes, the one with no experience and next to NO knowledge on the subject) claim that because bonnie++ writes files that are mostly zeros, the results are meaningless. It should be mentioned that bonnie++ writes files that are mostly zero for all the filesystems compared. So the results are meaningful, contrary to would you claim. And hopefully all will notice that you just ignore these tests: .-. |File |Disk |Copy |Copy |Tar |Unzip| Del | |System |Usage|655MB|655MB|Gzip |UnTar| 2.5 | |Type | (MB)| (1) | (2) |655MB|655MB| Gig | .-. |REISER4 gzip | 213 | 148 | 68 | 83 | 48 | 70 | |REISER4 lzo | 278 | 138 | 56 | 80 | 34 | 84 | |REISER4 tails| 673 | 148 | 63 | 78 | 33 | 65 | |REISER4 | 692 | 148 | 55 | 67 | 25 | 56 | |NTFS3g | 772 |1333 |1426 | 585 | 767 | 194 | |NTFS | 779 | 781 | 173 | X | X | X | |REISER3 | 793 | 184 | 98 | 85 | 63 | 22 | |XFS | 799 | 220 | 173 | 119 | 90 | 106 | |JFS | 806 | 228 | 202 | 95 | 97 | 127 | |EXT4 extents | 806 | 162 | 55 | 69 | 36 | 32 | |EXT4 default | 816 | 174 | 70 | 74 | 42 | 50 | |EXT3 | 816 | 182 | 74 | 73 | 43 | 51 | |EXT2 | 816 | 201 | 82 | 73 | 39 | 67 | |FAT32| 988 | 253 | 158 | 118 | 81 | 95 | .-. where the files are definitely NOT mostly zeros. Your negligence has to be deliberate,... but why? Are you manipulating the facts just to try and win an argument? Most sane people will realize, that what you say is simply wrong. ALSO YOU IGNORE examples offered by others, on lkml, which contradict your assertion: FOR EXAMPLE: > I see the same thing with my nightly scripts that do syslog analysis, last > year > I trimmed 2 hours from the nightly run by processing compressed files instead > of > uncompressed ones (after I did this I configured it to compress the files as > they are rolled, but rolling every 5 min the compression takes <20 seconds, > so > the compression is < 30 min) >From David Lang http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/7/196 Willy Tarreau also mentions this situation in a couple of articles. Let me spoon feed you: David has said that compressing the logs takes 24 x 12 x 20 secs = 5,760 secs = 1.6 hours of CPU time (over the day) but he saves 2 hours of CPU time on the daily syslog analysis. For a total (minimum) saving of 24 minutes. The actual saving is probably much greater. It depends on the CPU utilization when not compressing, ie, whether you are using ide CPU cycles or not. I guess it also depends on whether you can go home one and a half hours earlier by using compression, or if your boss makes you stick around anyway. NOTE THAT THE FILES IN THIS EXAMPLE ARE ALSO NOT MAINLY ZEROS. MAYBE you just lacked the knowledge to understand what David was saying, or maybe your desire to denigrate REISER4 is so strong, that you simply don't care what other people say about similar circumstances. I am not sure why you have to be spoon feed on these matters, or why you adamantly refuse to find the facts of the matter, for yourself.
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
Christer Weinigel: Until YOU, have actually used the REISER4 filesystem yourself, I think YOU OWE IT to the people on the linux-kernel mailing list, to, AS YOU SAY, shut the fuck up. Even reading up on the REISER4 filesystem would help. Applying a little intelligence would undoubtedly help too. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lennart. Tell me again that these results from http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm and http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm are not of interest to you. I still don't understand why you have your head in the sand. Oh, for fucks sake, stop sounding like a broken record. Oh, for fucks sake, would you, and your religious anti-REISER cohorts, stop sounding like a broken record. You have repeated the same totally meaningless statistics more times than I care to count. Please shut the fuck up. You, and your religious anti-REISER cohorts, have indeed repeated the same broken arguments (if you can call them such) more times than I care to count. NO statistics, NO real facts, just selective MANIPULATION of facts. Please shut the fuck up. Yes, why don't you politely, shut the fuck up. Until YOU, have actually used the REISER4 filesystem yourself, I think YOU OWE IT to the people on the linux-kernel mailing list, to shut the fuck up, as YOU say. I guess, the fact that you are a TOTAL HYPOCRITE, has completely escaped you. By the way: Did I thank you delightful people for the pleasant welcome to the linux-kernel mailing list? - So the two bonnie benchmarks with lzo and gzip are totally meaningless for any real life usages. YOU (yes, the one with no experience and next to NO knowledge on the subject) claim that because bonnie++ writes files that are mostly zeros, the results are meaningless. It should be mentioned that bonnie++ writes files that are mostly zero for all the filesystems compared. So the results are meaningful, contrary to would you claim. And hopefully all will notice that you just ignore these tests: .-. |File |Disk |Copy |Copy |Tar |Unzip| Del | |System |Usage|655MB|655MB|Gzip |UnTar| 2.5 | |Type | (MB)| (1) | (2) |655MB|655MB| Gig | .-. |REISER4 gzip | 213 | 148 | 68 | 83 | 48 | 70 | |REISER4 lzo | 278 | 138 | 56 | 80 | 34 | 84 | |REISER4 tails| 673 | 148 | 63 | 78 | 33 | 65 | |REISER4 | 692 | 148 | 55 | 67 | 25 | 56 | |NTFS3g | 772 |1333 |1426 | 585 | 767 | 194 | |NTFS | 779 | 781 | 173 | X | X | X | |REISER3 | 793 | 184 | 98 | 85 | 63 | 22 | |XFS | 799 | 220 | 173 | 119 | 90 | 106 | |JFS | 806 | 228 | 202 | 95 | 97 | 127 | |EXT4 extents | 806 | 162 | 55 | 69 | 36 | 32 | |EXT4 default | 816 | 174 | 70 | 74 | 42 | 50 | |EXT3 | 816 | 182 | 74 | 73 | 43 | 51 | |EXT2 | 816 | 201 | 82 | 73 | 39 | 67 | |FAT32| 988 | 253 | 158 | 118 | 81 | 95 | .-. where the files are definitely NOT mostly zeros. Your negligence has to be deliberate,... but why? Are you manipulating the facts just to try and win an argument? Most sane people will realize, that what you say is simply wrong. ALSO YOU IGNORE examples offered by others, on lkml, which contradict your assertion: FOR EXAMPLE: I see the same thing with my nightly scripts that do syslog analysis, last year I trimmed 2 hours from the nightly run by processing compressed files instead of uncompressed ones (after I did this I configured it to compress the files as they are rolled, but rolling every 5 min the compression takes 20 seconds, so the compression is 30 min) From David Lang http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/7/196 Willy Tarreau also mentions this situation in a couple of articles. Let me spoon feed you: David has said that compressing the logs takes 24 x 12 x 20 secs = 5,760 secs = 1.6 hours of CPU time (over the day) but he saves 2 hours of CPU time on the daily syslog analysis. For a total (minimum) saving of 24 minutes. The actual saving is probably much greater. It depends on the CPU utilization when not compressing, ie, whether you are using ide CPU cycles or not. I guess it also depends on whether you can go home one and a half hours earlier by using compression, or if your boss makes you stick around anyway. NOTE THAT THE FILES IN THIS EXAMPLE ARE ALSO NOT MAINLY ZEROS. MAYBE you just lacked the knowledge to understand what David was saying, or maybe your desire to denigrate REISER4 is so strong, that you simply don't care what other people say about similar circumstances. I am not sure why you have to be spoon feed on these matters, or why you adamantly refuse to find the facts of the matter, for yourself. -
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you referenced to in a reply... But dude, please calm down, the caps-lock is not the answer. You have got some rude answers and you have called them back on it + you have repeated the same statement several times, that is not the best way of convincing people. I believe you picked up the anti-Reiser religion-phrase from previous rant-wars (otherwise, why does that religion-phrase always come up, and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing with this matter. Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage? And document how it is set up so it can be reproduced. After all, Windows is suppose to be more stable, maintained and cost-efficient then Linux, but they don't tell us how ;) since it can't benefit as much from similarity between files. So if that is the case and you really want to save diskspace you almost have to look at read-only compressed filesystems such as cramfs, squashfs, zisofs, cloop and various other variants in combination with a unionfs overlay to get read/write functionality. But in the end everything is a tradeoff. You can save diskspace, but increase the cost of corruption. You deliberately ignored the fact that bad blocks are NOT dealt with by the filesystem,... but by the operating system. Like I said: If your filesystem is writing to bad blocks, then throw away your operating system. I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it? Yes, it should not assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data? Just my 2c to the pond Richard Knutsson - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you referenced to in a reply... TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed. A simple cut and paste error. You have got some rude answers and you have called them back on it Yeah, I (fairly closely) mimicked their behavior to make a point. + you have repeated the same statement several times, that is not the best way of convincing people. I know you DON'T believe that, as you are about the tenth person to repeat that repeating stuff has no effect. I believe you picked up the anti-Reiser religion-phrase from previous rant-wars (otherwise, why does that religion-phrase always come up, and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing with this matter. NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against Reiser4. Hence the term anti-Reiser religion. Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage? I might be. I don't really know how to set it all up. Perhaps if you guided me through it. You deliberately ignored the fact that bad blocks are NOT dealt with by the filesystem,... but by the operating system. Like I said: If your filesystem is writing to bad blocks, then throw away your operating system. I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it? Yeah, I can't see how the OS could read the love-letter either. But one thing is for sure. The FS ain't responsible for reading it. Yes, it should not assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data? It's a tough ask of any FS. Microsoft's filesystem checker totally roasted all my data on an XP-box last night. I had used ntfsresize to reduce the partition size and had a power outage. Later, Windows booted, ran the filesystem checker, seemed OK. Next time I boot, all I get is Input/Output error. Just my 2c to the pond Richard Knutsson Addin my 2c John. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
