On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/6/14 9:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Obviously we aren't in xfs/e2fsprogs territory, but it'll fix 90% of >> the problems and then the other 10% are just a matter of having an >> example to work off of. Thanks, >> >> Josef > > Josef, just as a datapoint: after corrupting 32k random bytes on a 2G > image lightly populated and made with default mkfs options, then running > fsck with all of your recent fixes, I got 9 mount failures out of 20 > attempts, 55% success. > > Running the same test, but w/ 2 devices, each randomly damaged to > the same extent, and created with -m raid1 -d raid0, I get > 10 failures out of 20, 50% success. > > (Note that this is just a low-bar "will it mount" test, I'm > not looking at what's in the repaired filesystem at all). > > What sort of testing yielded your 90% success rate? > The 90% is just off the top of my head, I used to be doing lots of fsck work for users with corrupted fs, I do that a lot less now, so it seems like we're making progress. I have never done any fsfuzzer testing, I'll put that on the list. Thanks, Josef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
