From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932248AbWGaU4s (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:56:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932272AbWGaU4s (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:56:48 -0400 Received: from warden-p.diginsite.com ([208.29.163.248]:63382 "HELO warden.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932248AbWGaU4r (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:56:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:53:09 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang.diginsite.com To: David Masover cc: Clay Barnes , Rudy Zijlstra , Adrian Ulrich , vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl, ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.orgregarding reiser4 inclusion In-Reply-To: <44CE6153.7090704@slaphack.com> Message-ID: References: <200607241806.k6OI6uWY006324@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> <20060731125846.aafa9c7c.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> <20060731144736.GA1389@merlin.emma.line.org> <20060731175958.1626513b.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> <20060731162224.GJ31121@lug-owl.de> <20060731173239.GO31121@lug-owl.de> <20060731181120.GA9667@merlin.emma.line.org> <20060731184314.GQ31121@lug-owl.de> <20060731191712.GE17206@HAL_5000D.tc.ph.cox.net> <20060731192902.GS31121@lug-owl.de> <44CE6153.7090704@slaphack.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote: > Probably. By the time a few KB of metadata are corrupted, I'm reaching for > my backup. I don't care what filesystem it is or how easy it is to edit the > on-disk structures. > > This isn't to say that having robust on-disk structures isn't a good thing. > I have no idea how Reiser4 will hold up either way. But ultimately, what you > want is the journaling (so power failure / crashes still leave you in an OK > state), backups (so when blocks go bad, you don't care), and performance (so > you can spend less money on hardware and more money on backup hardware). please read the discussion that took place at the filesystem summit a couple weeks ago (available on lwn.net) one of the things that they pointed out there is that as disks get larger the ratio of bad spots per Gig of storage is remaining about the same. As is the rate of failures per Gig of storage. As a result of this the idea of only running on perfect disks that never have any failures is becomeing significantly less realistic, instead you need to take measures to survive in the face of minor corruption (including robust filesystems, raid, etc) David Lang