johnrobertbanks@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, "Richard Knutsson"
<ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you
referenced to in a reply...
TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed.
Oh, took it to be from 5-6 sources...
+ you have repeated the same statement several times, that is
not the best way of convincing people.
I know you DON'T believe that, as you are about the tenth person to
repeat that "repeating stuff has no effect."
Why should we change our response to the same error? The only solution
to this loop is when people stops answering you and you "lose".
I believe you picked up the "anti-Reiser religion"-phrase from previous
rant-wars (otherwise, why does that "religion"-phrase always come up,
and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been
some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing
with this matter.
NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against
Reiser4.
Hence the term "anti-Reiser religion."
Please, don't address someone you meet for the first time as "you people"!
Yes, we do _work_ together, it is a community and as a community you
have to follow the social rules agreed upon. Without all those
pro-Reiser peoples who knew how to work with the rest, there would not
be a ResierFS/Reiser3 in the kernel. Unfortunately, Hans is in this case
his own worst enemy and has ruffed quite a few feathers over the time. I
don't think you would like someone who tells you "if you do it my way,
then you are doing it wrong"...
But personally, even if I find Hans a bit too strong-headed, he got some
interesting design-ideas and the Reiser-filesystem is something I think
many find interesting as a concept but not yet trust-worthy for their
own machines.
Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed
binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage?
I might be. I don't really know how to set it all up.
Perhaps if you guided me through it.
Am not sure how much help I would be but from the responses to your
benchmark-list, there seems to be many who could help you. But first I
think you should set up a system to test on, and then after some tests
and made the result public, there will (most likely) be people who ask
you to test it in some specific way.
I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive,
screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then
returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for
corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it?
Yeah, I can't see how the OS could read the love-letter either.
But one thing is for sure. The FS ain't responsible for reading it.
And no-one has asked the file-system to _read_ the disk, but to be
designed to help restore the file-structure. This I have found to be the
main-point people complains about.
It is like arguing against air-bags in a car. Of course the car should
not be responsible for preventing accidents, but they are designed so
_if_ it happens, you should not be totally screwed.
Yes, it should not
assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the
file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data?
It's a tough ask of any FS.
Microsoft's filesystem checker totally roasted all my data on an XP-box
last night.
Sorry to hear that, but two wrongs does not make it right.
Richard Knutsson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
