[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: scary ext2 filesystem question

> Erm... What I really wonder is how much would we lose on the following
> policy:
> Request 1: <write new data block>, depends on <>
> Request 2: <write new indirect block> or <add a pointer to existing one>,
> depends on <1>
> Request 3: <update inode block>, depends on <2>.
> In the worst case it will give us lost block, not attached to
> anything. BFD.
> With the current ext2 + bdflush we can get _any_ order at all,
> AFAI can see.

And what I'm wondering is, whatever order the steps occur, are they
grouped together so that time is minimized between the first and last
step for a given file? Wouldn't that produce the most consistency in the
face of failure (lacking a journal)?

If anybody wants to flame me for saying something obvious or stupid,
please go ahead, but add some constructive explanations too. I'm trying to
grok the fs stuff, but I'm just beginning.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | PGP key at
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to
Gaussian noise.
-- James Martin

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.086 / U:2.724 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site