Re: Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?

[Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:01:46 -0400
someone wrote:

> You write:
> | Can you tell me what is so particularly bad about the idea to cope a
> | little bit with braindead (or just-dying) hardware?
> 
> [...]
>  It probably could be done. I do not think it would be small or easy.
> Especially if filesystem developers feel that modern drives only start
> experiencing user-visible write errors about when they are going to
> explode in general, they may rationally feel that the work is not worth
> it.

I can very well accept that argument. What I am trying to do is only make
_someone_ writing a fs listen to the problem, and maybe - only maybe - in _his_
fs it is not as complicated and so he simply hacks it in. I am only arguing for
having a choice. Not more. If e.g. reiserfs had the feature I could simply
shoot all extX stuff and use my preferred fs all the time. That's just about
it. No religion involved. I am not arguing this type of feature as a
_must-have_. I only think regarding the neat stuff that is already inside
reiser (just to name my currently preferred fs) it would be very kind to have
write-error-recovery additionally.

Regards,
Stephan