Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): mail.linux.kernel/[email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 10 lines · On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:01:46 -0400 someone wrote:
You write:
| Can you tell me what is so particularly bad about the idea to cope a | little bit with braindead (or just-dying) hardware?[...]
It probably could be done. I do not think it would be small or easy.
Especially if filesystem developers feel that modern drives only start experiencing user-visible write errors about when they are going to explode in general, they may rationally feel that the work is not worth it.
I can very well accept that argument. What I am trying to do is only make _someone_ writing a fs listen to the problem, and maybe - only maybe - in _his_ fs it is not as complicated and so he simply hacks it in. I am only arguing for having a choice. Not more. If e.g. reiserfs had the feature I could simply shoot all extX stuff and use my preferred fs all the time. That's just about it. No religion involved. I am not arguing this type of feature as a _must-have_. I only think regarding the neat stuff that is already inside reiser (just to name my currently preferred fs) it would be very kind to have write-error-recovery additionally.
Regards,
Stephan
Quoted 5 lines · Stephan von Krawczynski
I can very well accept that argument. What I am trying to do is only make _someone_ writing a fs listen to the problem, and maybe - only maybe - in _his_ fs it is not as complicated and so he simply hacks it in. I am only arguing for having a choice. Not more. If e.g. reiserfs had the feature I could simply shoot all extX stuff and use my preferred fs all the time. That's just about
You can interest Hans Reiser I'm sure. Just find $100,000.
Its economically saner, better design and a lot more things to just use md.
Quoted 2 lines · Stephan von Krawczynski
I can very well accept that argument. What I am trying to do is only make _someone_ writing a fs listen to the problem, and maybe - only maybe - in
_hi
s_
Quoted 1 line
fs it is not as complicated and so he simply hacks it in. I am only arguing f
or
Quoted 2 lines
having a choice. Not more. If e.g. reiserfs had the feature I could simply shoot all extX stuff and use my preferred fs all the time. That's just about
So what do you do if your mythical file system supports bad block relocation but doesn't support something else you need, like journaling or quotas or whatever?
Nobody's mentioned the most obvious reason why it doesn't belong in the filesystem, but needs to be in something like the 'md' layer like (I think) John Bradford suggested:
No amount of code wanking in the filesystem is going to save you if you hit an error on your swap partition - but an 'md'-like driver might be able to save you.
Quoted 3 lines · On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 10:14:19AM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
No amount of code wanking in the filesystem is going to save you if you hit an error on your swap partition - but an 'md'-like driver might be able to save you.
Unless you swap to a file... ;)
Which can be a overall benifet if you have one filesystem/partition on a drive. Your swap is closer to you data, and thus faster seek time. :)
Now let's watch all of the people mention all of the deadlocks that come along with this... (really, I'd like to know.)