On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:30:57 -0400 Chris Mason <chris.ma...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:00:08AM +0000, Lubos Kolouch wrote: > > No, not stable! > > > > Again, after powerloss, I have *two* damaged btrfs filesystems. > > Please tell me more about your system. I do extensive power fail > testing here without problems, and corruptions after powerloss are very > often caused by the actual hardware. > > So, what kind of drives do you have, do they have writeback caching on, > and what are you layering on top of the drive between btrfs and the > kernel? > > -chris Chris, the actual way how a fs was damaged must not be relevant. From a new fs design one should expect the tree can be mounted no matter what corruption took place up to the case where the fs is indeed empty after mounting because it was completely corrupted. If parts were corrupt then the fs should either be able to assist the user in correcting the damages _online_ or at least simply exclude the damaged fs parts from the actual mounted fs tree. The basic thought must be "show me what you have" and not "shit, how do I get access to the working but not mountable fs parts again?". Would you buy a car that refuses to drive if the ash tray is broken? -- Regards, Stephan -- 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
