Hi!
> > I guess I should try to measure it. (Linux already does writeback
> > caching, with 2GB of memory. I wonder how important disks's 2MB of
> > cache can be).
>
> It serves essentially the same purpose as the 'async' option in /etc/exports
> (i.e. we declare it "done" when the other end of t
On Jan 17, 2008 7:29 AM, Szabolcs Szakacsits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Similarly to ZFS, Windows Server 2008 also has self-healing NTFS:
I guess that is enough votes to justify going ahead and trying an
implementation of the reverse mapping ideas I posted. But of course
more votes for this is
On Tue 2008-01-15 20:36:16, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:24:27 -0500
> "Daniel Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad
> > > > if the disk is not e
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
> cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
> worth the effort.
Most users seem to care deeply about "things just work". Here is why
ntfs-3g also took th
On Jan 15, 2008 22:05 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> With a filesystem that is compartmentalized and checksums metadata,
> I believe that an online fsck is absolutely worth having.
>
> Instead of the filesystem resorting to mounting the whole volume
> read-only on certain errors, part of the filesy
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
>> disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
>> using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
>> It would be awfully nice to know which brands fail here, if any,
On Jan 16, 2008 3:49 AM, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ext3's "lets fsck on every 20 mounts" is good idea, but it can be
> annoying when developing. Having option to fsck while filesystem is
> online takes that annoyance away.
I'm sure everyone on cc: knows this, but for the record y
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 08:43:25AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> ext3 is not the only filesystem that will have trouble due to
> volatile write caches. We see problems often enough with XFS
> due to volatile write caches that it's in our FAQ:
In fact it will hit every filesystem. A write-back cac
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 12:51:44 +0100, Pavel Machek said:
> I guess I should try to measure it. (Linux already does writeback
> caching, with 2GB of memory. I wonder how important disks's 2MB of
> cache can be).
It serves essentially the same purpose as the 'async' option in /etc/exports
(i.e. we de
On Tue 2008-01-15 18:44:26, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 6:07 PM, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I had write cache enabled on my main computer. Oops. I guess that
> > means we do need better documentation.
>
> Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad
Hi!
> Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
> cares about online fsck?
I'm not the world's spokeperson (yet ;-).
> Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
> worth the effort.
ext3's "lets fsck on every 20 mounts" is good idea, but it can be
annoying when deve
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:44:38 -0500
"Daniel Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
> cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
> worth the effort.
With a filesystem that is compartmentalized and checksu
Hi Pavel,
Along with this effort, could you let me know if the world actually
cares about online fsck? Now we know how to do it I think, but is it
worth the effort.
Regards,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROT
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:24:27 -0500
"Daniel Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad
> > > if the disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on
> > > power loss,
On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
> > disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
> > using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
> > It would be awf
> Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
> disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on power loss,
> using the disk motor as a generator or alternatively a small battery.
> It would be awfully nice to know which brands fail here, if any,
> because writeback
On Jan 15, 2008 6:07 PM, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had write cache enabled on my main computer. Oops. I guess that
> means we do need better documentation.
Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad if the
disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on
Hi!
> > > > What are ext3 expectations of disk (is there doc somewhere)? For
> > > > example... if disk does not lie, but powerfail during write damages
> > > > the sector -- is ext3 still going to work properly?
> > >
> > > Nope. However the few disks that did this rapidly got firmware updates
>
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:16:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > What are ext3 expectations of disk (is there doc somewhere)? For
> > > example... if disk does not lie, but powerfail during write damages
> > > the sector -- is ext3 still going to work properly?
> >
> > Nope. However th
Hi!
> > What are ext3 expectations of disk (is there doc somewhere)? For
> > example... if disk does not lie, but powerfail during write damages
> > the sector -- is ext3 still going to work properly?
>
> Nope. However the few disks that did this rapidly got firmware updates
> because there are o
20 matches
Mail list logo
