On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:36:14PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Daniel Kozlowski > <dan.kozlow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet > > <rdele...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Daniel Kozlowski > >> <dan.kozlow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Sean Bartell <wingedtachikoma <at> gmail.com> writes: > >>> > >>>> > Is there a more aggressive filesystem restorer than btrfsck? It simply > >>>> > gives up immediately with the following error: > >>>> > > >>>> > btrfsck: disk-io.c:739: open_ctree_fd: Assertion `!(!tree_root->node)' > >>>> > failed. > >>>> > >>>> btrfsck currently only checks whether a filesystem is consistent. It > >>>> doesn't try to perform any recovery or error correction at all, so it's > >>>> mostly useful to developers. Any error handling occurs while the > >>>> filesystem is mounted. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Is there any plan to implement this functionality. It would seem to me to > >>> be a > >>> pretty basic feature that is missing ? > >> > >> If Btrfs aims to be at least half of what ZFS is, then it will not > >> impose a need for fsck at all. > >> > >> Read "No, ZFS really doesn't need a fsck" at the following URL: > >> > >> http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6071-No,-ZFS-really-doesnt-need-a-fsck.html > >> > > > > Interesting idea. it would seem to me however that the functionality > > described in that article is more concerned with a bad transaction > > rather then something like a hardware failure where a block written > > more then 128 transactions ago is now corrupted and consiquently the > > entire partition is now unmountable( that is what I think i am looking > > at with BTRFS ) > > In the ZFS case, this is handled by checksumming and redundant data, > and can be discovered (and fixed) via either reading the affected data > block (in which case, the checksum is wrong, the data is read from a > redundant data block, and the correct data is written over the > incorrect data) or by running a scrub. > > Self-healing, checksumming, data redundancy eliminate the need for > online (or offline) fsck. > > Automatic transaction rollback at boot eliminates the need for fsck at > boot, as there is no such thing as "a dirty filesystem". Either the > data is on disk and correct, or it doesn't exist. Yes, you may lose > data. But you will never have a corrupted filesystem. > > Not sure how things work for btrfs.
btrfs works in a similar way. While it's writing new data, it keeps the superblock pointing at the old data, so after a crash you still get the complete old version. Once the new data is written, the superblock is updated to point at it, ensuring that you see the new data. This eliminates the need for any special handling after a crash. btrfs also uses checksums and redundancy to protect against data corruption. Thanks to its design, btrfs doesn't need to scan the filesystem or cross-reference structures to detect problems. It can easily detect corruption at run-time when it tries to read the problematic data, and fixes it using the redundant copies. In the event that something goes horribly wrong, for example if each copy of the superblock or of a tree root is corrupted, you could still find some valid nodes and try to piece them together; however, this is rare and falls outside the scope of a fsck anyway. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
