From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1030404AbWGaVA1@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1030404AbWGaVA1 (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:00:27 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030390AbWGaVA0
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:00:26 -0400
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]:42105 "EHLO
	py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1030404AbWGaVAZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:00:25 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=lTJsj29feWlizFcnXEU3FrFypdP6oV4i9D2gEKqKYdRsfeGxzHFlAuzrLzWR+DAdf8NzdRCs3RB+d7n7Gtr2r4JnNLaTX6fM68EOCvM+jmMad6TYHC0/cZiRwWIrWCZ8tOOnvSC1tJLuufc8+s+nCC6B9LQvv9Chm41uyQafkCM=
Message-ID: <e692861c0607311400x412d2e6bv71f474ea959c9e00@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:00:14 -0400
From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: "Alan Cox" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
Cc: "Clay Barnes" <clay.barnes@gmail.com>,
       "Rudy Zijlstra" <rudy@edsons.demon.nl>,
       "Adrian Ulrich" <reiser4@blinkenlights.ch>, 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
In-Reply-To: <1154374923.7230.99.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1153760245.5735.47.camel@ipso.snappymail.ca>
	 <20060731144736.GA1389@merlin.emma.line.org>
	 <20060731175958.1626513b.reiser4@blinkenlights.ch>
	 <20060731162224.GJ31121@lug-owl.de>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607311842120.13492@nedra.edsons.demon.nl>
	 <20060731173239.GO31121@lug-owl.de>
	 <20060731181120.GA9667@merlin.emma.line.org>
	 <20060731184314.GQ31121@lug-owl.de>
	 <20060731191712.GE17206@HAL_5000D.tc.ph.cox.net>
	 <1154374923.7230.99.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 7/31/06, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> Its well accepted that reiserfs3 has some robustness problems in the
> face of physical media errors. The structure of the file system and the
> tree basis make it very hard to avoid such problems. XFS appears to have
> managed to achieve both robustness and better data structures.
>
> How reiser4 compares I've no idea.

Citation?

I ask because your clam differs from the only detailed research that
I'm aware of on the subject[1]. In figure 2 of the iron filesystems
paper that Ext3 is show to ignore a great number of data-loss inducing
failure conditions that Reiser3 detects an panics under.

Are you sure that you aren't commenting on cases where Reiser3 alerts
the user to a critical data condition (via a panic) which leads to a
trouble report while ext3 ignores the problem which suppresses the
trouble report from the user?

*1) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf