Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:09:17 -0400 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: Volume management on Linux with the ext2fs. |
| |
From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 20:35:50 +0100 (BST)
Isnt it an extreme case of "badblock" ?
No, "badblock" (or rather e2fsck, which handles the assignments of badblocks) doesn't try to actually move blocks out of the way. Rather, it assumes that the data on those blocks are already toast, and tries to clean up the mess afterwards.....
You are assuming you are logging for the purpose of clean recovery from all cases. The laptop case of logging for power management is a simpler starting point as you dont care if you have to fsck the disk (and peek into the log whats left of it anyway).
Yes, I'm assuming that someone has a 20 gigabyte news spool that then don't want to fsck after a system crash.
Using a simpler starting point is can be a good strategy, as long as the framework that you put together is actually scalable to the more general case problem.
We have the libraries for B trees in the kernel hfs module, and they are extremely clean and thus could be readily transported to ext2.
You mean the Macintosh HFS filesystem? I'll have to take a look at those....
I'd prefer to see volume management as a part of the RAID stuff, even down to the idea that a disk is a sort of poor RAID0 array. This gives us benefits we can apply to other file systems too later on
It would be interesting to set up disk partitions so they always had the md header, so it would be easier to migrate them to using the md driver later....
- Ted
| |