![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 23:13:53 +0200 Jos Hulzink <josh@stack.nl> wrote: > [...] > Fault tolerance in a filesystem layer means in practical terms that you are > guessing what a filesystem should look like, for the disk doesn't answer that > > question anymore. IMHO you don't want that to be done automagically, for it > might go right sometimes, but also might trash everything on RW filesystems. Let me clarify again: I don't want fancy stuff inside the filesystem that magically knows something about right-or-wrong. The only _very small_ enhancement I would like to see is: driver tells fs there is an error while writing a certain block => fs tries writing the same data onto another block. That's it, no magic, no RAID stuff. Very simple. > Fault tolerance OK, but the fs layer should only detect errors reported by > the lower level drivers and handle them gracefully (which is something that > might need impovement a little for some fs drivers), or else trust the data > it gets. You are completely right, I don't want any more: nice management of an error a low-level driver reports to the fs. Only I would like to see as an fs-answer to this: ok, let's try another part of the media. Currently it just sinks like titanic. Regards, Stephan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:34 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||