[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFD] Incremental fsck
Rik van Riel wrote:
> Al Boldi <> wrote:
> > Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic.
> You can't play fast and loose with data integrity.

Correct, but you have to be realistic...

> Besides, if we looked at things optimistically, we would conclude
> that no fsck will be needed,

And that's the reality, because people are mostly optimistic and feel
extremely tempted to just force-mount a dirty ext3fs, instead of waiting
hours-on-end for a complete fsck, which mostly comes back with some benign
"inode should be zero" warning.

> ever :)

Well not ever, but most people probably fsck during scheduled shutdowns, or
when they are forced to, due to online fs accessibility errors.

> > >
> You will really want to read this paper, if you haven't already.

Definitely a good read, but attacking the problem from a completely different

BTW: Dropped some cc's due to bounces.



 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-10 14:29    [W:0.107 / U:5.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site