On Wednesday 13 September 2006 23:53, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:04:01PM +0200, Christian Laursen wrote:
> > Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> > > on some assumptions about when the data
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
[...] If so, this would be an advantage over SU, as
it does surely not use the new introduced BIO_FLUSH. [...]
Soft-updates doesn't handle disk write caches at all.
you're totaly right. I was refering to the assumption of SU that the
drive cache will not "lie
Teufel wrote:
> so when the crash occur exactly when BIO_FLUSH is sent or while the
> cache is flushing, there is still no corruption possbile?
A small additional note ... If there's a _hardware_ crash
(e.g. power outage) which causes a track write of the HDD
to be interrupted, you will get co
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 05:28:49PM +0200, Teufel wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >>>- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> >>>on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
> >>>media, and those are not always valid today
> >>>
> >>I t
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on the same assumptions.
Not gjournal, because it
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:04:01PM +0200, Christian Laursen wrote:
> Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> > on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
> > media, and those are not always valid to
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:47:50PM +0200, Teufel wrote:
> Well, thats why i actually don't find journaling filesystems very sexy.
> So the question is, if it is still safe to use fsck on a gjournal
> enabled FS ?
Well, if you just want to check, you can take a snapshot and run fsck -n
on it. Th
Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian Laursen wrote:
However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corru
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 19:34, Christian Laursen wrote:
> Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> > on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
> > media, and those are not always valid today
>
> I
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian Laursen wrote:
>
>> Journaling also needs writes to be done in the correct order. You don't
>> want to write the real update to the filesystem before you have made sure
>
> Ok, but journal is (or should be) protected by checksumming or some
> kind
Christian Laursen wrote:
Journaling also needs writes to be done in the correct order. You don't
want to write the real update to the filesystem before you have made sure
Ok, but journal is (or should be) protected by checksumming or some kind
of record markers, so invalid entries are not rep
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian Laursen wrote:
>
>> However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
>> about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
>
> Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corruption? The
> same kind that can
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christian Laursen wrote:
>> Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
>>> on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
>>> media, and those are not always valid t
Christian Laursen wrote:
However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.
Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corruption? The
same kind that can generally come from on-drive caches?
___
Christian Laursen wrote:
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on the same assumptions
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - todays desktop drives can lie about writing data. SoftUpdates relies
> on some assumptions about when the data is physically written to
> media, and those are not always valid today
I think journaling relies on the same assumptions.
However, with journa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only bgfsck
has todo a snapshot and cleanup "unused" space that got lost cause the
SU did not finish as the crash occured.
Maybe someone can give me some light into that :). I always tought that
*BSD don't need a journaling FS as it has already SU
Soft-updates was
I've just watched over some of the gjournal threads.
My main question now is, whats the difference from gjournal and
softupdates in case of reability ?
Wasn't SU design to make the use of journals needless? As far i
remember, SU was designed to write in the cache in such a way, that
18 matches
Mail list logo
