Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:38:42 +0200 (CEST) | From | Grzegorz Kulewski <> | Subject | Re: reiser4 plugins |
| |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
> 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.
Maybe but I once checked some other error scenario. I generated (by mistake of course) dm table that lineary connected 3 times the same partition (instead of 3 different partitions). Both Reiser4 and Reiserfs3 gave a lot of errors while trying to use such device. Ext3 did not give single error and was hapily droping my data,
I agree that this is not very useful test case for disk problems but it shows that, at least, checks for trouble in Reiser4 are miles before those in Ext2/3. If only Reiser4 could print a note what I done wrong... ;-)
Grzegorz Kulewski - 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/
| |