So the goal is to be able to map/reduce from input files with missing
blocks?
On May 1, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
Eric Baldeschwieler wrote:
Why not go after the FS APIs so you can simply read the remaining
good blocks? Might it work already if you had a client that
skipped a block if it found a missing one (via error/exception)?
Or create empty blocks...
Well, this version of fsck is an interim solution anyway. Currently
corrupted files can't be processed, so we need a way to weed them
out, and possible recover as much data as possible from the leftovers.
My point is that we have no other way to do it now. If/when the
missing block handling improves so that it doesn't kill jobs, we
can change this part of fsck to simply move files; for now I think
a middle-ground solution (additional -recover option) would be better.
--
Best regards,
Andrzej Bialecki <><
___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________
[__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web
___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration
http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com
