On Fri, July 1, 2005 15:01, M. wrote:
> When your hard disk get a bad block you can't keep using it and rely
> on the "badblocks-proof filesystem structure that prevents you to do
> backups"..even with FAT, the simpler filesystem structure around, if you
> keep using you disk you are likely going to loose some data (yes, maybe
> not entire files). But, even with the metadata's richer filesystem, if you
> detect the first badblock you can save almost everything.
problem is when you detect it...
>
> Does it really makes sense to design a filesystem in a way that gives
> users some more time to use their filesystem from the first happened
> badblock or it's better to focus on new features that give better everyday
> use in terms of performance, functionalities, etc ?
to give users more times means that most users will wait more time, but
won't take any action to prevent data loss.
on the other side, I doubt home users are really sensitive about
performances. they do care about performances, but I do not know if they
are able to evaluate performances as well.
even for servers, if they are not stressed, it is difficoult with modern
hardware to evaluate I/O performances.
>
> And, are you sure that users who dont do and dont know they have to do
> backups of sensitive data are able to recover a corrupted filesystem ?
>
My experience taught me they aren't.
but they complain anyway.
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |