Rik van Riel wrote:
quoted text
> Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> 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...

quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> ever :)

Well not ever, but most people probably fsck during scheduled shutdowns, or 
when they are forced to, due to online fs accessibility errors.

quoted text
> > > 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html