Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 22:13:03 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anyone working on fsck? Message-ID: <20030318201303.GD1825@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <200303172205.RAA18117@goliath.cnchost.com> References: <54291.1047937142@critter.freebsd.dk> <200303172205.RAA18117@goliath.cnchost.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2003-03-17 14:05, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote: >> If you start to implement any sort of journaling (that is what you >> talked about in your email), you might as well just stop right at >> the "clean" bit, and avoid the complexity. > > No, I didn't suggest journaling, I suggested storing all state in a > contiguous area (or a small number of such areas). indirect blocks, > keeping track of free blocks, etc. You can still do a completely > exhaustive fsck but it won't be exhausting to you. This has two disadvantages though. One of them is that you'll end up redefining UFS which Julian prohibited. The other one is that you risk corruption if this area (or some of these areas) of the disk has hardware problems. One area only is entirely out of question. If it breaks, you lost it all. Add too many of these areas and you waste a lot of disk space. Of course, there probably is some percentage that can give us all the benefits of accessing only a fraction of the total disk space and still be small enough to be ok. It can even be made tunable with tunefs, as so many other things. But if this is done, it should be done after quite a bit of research. And you still end up modifying UFS. - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030318201303.GD1825>