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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
