lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: File system snapshopts: how valuable?
Date
Letting the chips fall where they may, I quote Peter Benie:
>Another nice feature of the NetApp FAServer is the fact that, modulo
>filesystem bugs, it does not need fscking. A new filesystem design
>ought to have this feature since fsck would take quite some time to
>run on a 50Gb disk.

That's not entirely true... they do need checking sometimes. The reason it
is generally never done is because of the NVRAM log of all write traffic.
Crashes and sudden power-downs don't have the same effect on the filesystem
as the unwritten data is not lost. Damage the NVRAM, and you have a corrupted
WAFL. There are ways to fsck the array, but they are not normally made
available to users.

Think of it as an ext2fs that, sans bugs, never gets shutdown improperly. Such
a fs would, in theory, never need to be checked.

--Ricky

PS: I can point out more than a few ways to foobar a NetApp's filesystem.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:41    [W:0.047 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site