On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:04:01PM +0200, Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on the same assumptions.
Not gjournal, because
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 05:28:49PM +0200, Teufel wrote:
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling
Teufel wrote:
so when the crash occur exactly when BIO_FLUSH is sent or while the
cache is flushing, there is still no corruption possbile?
A small additional note ... If there's a _hardware_ crash
(e.g. power outage) which causes a track write of the HDD
to be interrupted, you will get
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
[...] If so, this would be an advantage over SU, as
it does surely not use the new introduced BIO_FLUSH. [...]
Soft-updates doesn't handle disk write caches at all.
you're totaly right. I was refering to the assumption of SU that the
drive cache will not lie
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:53, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:04:01PM +0200, Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is
I've just watched over some of the gjournal threads.
My main question now is, whats the difference from gjournal and
softupdates in case of reability ?
Wasn't SU design to make the use of journals needless? As far i
remember, SU was designed to write in the cache in such a way, that
whenever
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only bgfsck
has todo a snapshot and cleanup unused space that got lost cause the
SU did not finish as the crash occured.
Maybe someone can give me some light into that :). I always tought that
*BSD don't need a journaling FS as it has already SU
Soft-updates was a
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on the same assumptions.
However, with journaling
Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on the same assumptions.
Christian Laursen wrote:
However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corruption? The
same kind that can generally come from on-drive caches?
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Laursen wrote:
However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corruption? The
same kind that can generally
Christian Laursen wrote:
Journaling also needs writes to be done in the correct order. You don't
want to write the real update to the filesystem before you have made sure
Ok, but journal is (or should be) protected by checksumming or some kind
of record markers, so invalid entries are not
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Laursen wrote:
Journaling also needs writes to be done in the correct order. You don't
want to write the real update to the filesystem before you have made sure
Ok, but journal is (or should be) protected by checksumming or some
kind of record
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:34, Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think
Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Laursen wrote:
However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:47:50PM +0200, Teufel wrote:
Well, thats why i actually don't find journaling filesystems very sexy.
So the question is, if it is still safe to use fsck on a gjournal
enabled FS ?
Well, if you just want to check, you can take a snapshot and run fsck -n
on it. That
18 matches
Mail list logo
