Heinz Sporn wrote: >I also don't quite understand the suggestion to ignore "arguments about >data corruption". These weren't arguments but simple facts. A lot of >posters here experienced various troubles with almost every FS there is. > >That doesn't proof that any of the discussed filesystems is BAD - but it >does proof that - excuse my english - shit happens and you might lose >data regardless of the FS you went for. A 100% bulletproof FS simply >seem not to exist. > >
That was *exactly* my point. Even though you can find examples of corruption with all filesystems, it is still a fairly rare occurrence in the real world, at least with the ones we have been discussing. ( To be precise, I should have said 'filesystem corruption', not data corruption....anything that just journals meta-data has a fair chance of losing/corrupting some data in a crash...it is the filesystem structures that journaling is meant to protect in that case). So, since (paraphrasing your statement above), individual instances of filesystem corruption should not be proof of a poor filesystem design, then arguments to avoid a particular filesystem based solely on an instance of corruption should be ignored. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
