Rik van Riel wrote: > Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic. > > You can't play fast and loose with data integrity. Correct, but you have to be realistic... > Besides, if we looked at things optimistically, we would conclude > that no fsck will be needed, And that's the reality, because people are mostly optimistic and feel extremely tempted to just force-mount a dirty ext3fs, instead of waiting hours-on-end for a complete fsck, which mostly comes back with some benign "inode should be zero" warning. > ever :) Well not ever, but most people probably fsck during scheduled shutdowns, or when they are forced to, due to online fs accessibility errors. > > > http://infohost.nmt.edu/~val/review/chunkfs.pdf > > You will really want to read this paper, if you haven't already. Definitely a good read, but attacking the problem from a completely different POV. BTW: Dropped some cc's due to bounces. Thanks! -- Al - 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
