On Monday 24 August 2009 19:08:42 Theodore Tso wrote: > And if your > claim is that several hundred lines of fsck output detailing the > filesystem's destruction somehow makes things all better, I suspect > most users would disagree with you. Suppose a small office makes nightly backups to an offsite server via rsync. If a thunderstorm goes by causing their system to reboot twice in a 15 minute period, would they rather notice the filesystem corruption immediately upon reboot, or notice after the next rsync? > In any case, depending on where the flash was writing at the time of > the unplug, the data corruption could be silent anyway. Yup. Hopefully btrfs will cope less badly? They keep talking about checksumming extents... > Maybe this came as a surprise to you, but anyone who has used a > compact flash in a digital camera knows that you ***have*** to wait > until the led has gone out before trying to eject the flash card. I doubt the cupholder crowd is going to stop treating USB sticks as magical any time soon, but I also wonder how many of them even remember Linux _exists_ anymore. > I > remember seeing all sorts of horror stories from professional > photographers about how they lost an important wedding's day worth of > pictures with the attendant commercial loss, on various digital > photography forums. It tends to be the sort of mistake that digital > photographers only make once. Professionals have horror stories about this issue, therefore documenting it is _less_ important? Ok... Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
