Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: reiser4 plugins | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:20:36 +0100 |
| |
On Gwe, 2005-06-24 at 20:21, Hans Reiser wrote: > Alan, this is FUD. Our V3 fsck was written after everything else was, > for lack of staffing reasons (why write an fsck before you have an FS > worth using). As a result, there was a long period where the fsck code > was unstable. It is reliable now. > > People often think that our tree makes fsck less robust. Actually fsck > can throw the entire internal tree away and rebuild from leaf nodes, and > frankly that makes things pretty robust.
I did a series of tests well after resier3 had fsck that consisted of modelling the behaviour of systems under error state. I modelled random bit errors, bit errors at a fixed offset (class ram failure), sector 4 byte slip (known IDE fail case) and sectors going away.
Reiserfs didn't handle it anything like as gracefully as ext2. Its a pretty easy experiment to write the code for and the results are interesting.
- 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/
| |