Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:33:15 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, terry@lambert.org, rnordier@iafrica.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: dosfsck anyone? Message-ID: <199605070203.LAA18048@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199605070122.SAA22485@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at May 6, 96 06:22:39 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert stands accused of saying: > > > > 1) There is a limit on the number of entries in "/" on DOS FS's > > > that isn't enforced on subdirectories. > > > > > > a) If you don't use "lost+found", you risk exceeding > > > this limit. > > > > I don't think _not_ using it is an option. > > Works not having one under DOS... "works" in what context? If you mean "chkdsk works without one", then I suggest you consider what happens when it tries to create too many .chk files. These aren't actually much use anyway. Using a heirachy under a lost+found directory gives you some chance of segregating the victims of seperate corruptions, which may help a little in reconstruction. I think that most people faced with serious FAT FS corruption would just blow it away and restore/reinstall, so the aim is not to intuit magical details, but just to get the FS in a consistent state. > I liked the idea of handling crosslinks by deconstruction rather > than lost+found. The problem being that the deconstruction is almost certain to be wrong. > Sorry; I just got off a project doing a network redirector for > Win95, and they were all faked. Shouldn't have assumed. 8-(. Fair enough 8) The only useful think about '..' is that it points to the starting cluster of the parent directory. > What about ".." in "/"? There isn't one 8) > > > How will these anomolies be introduced? By (in violation of usage > > > semantics) caching? > > > > No. By the potential operation of the 'dosfsck' program, as stated in > > the preceeding paragraph. > > How does a cross-link get created is what I was asking...? Ah. I don't think we're expecting any to be created by the new DOSFS, but you'll get them under DOS if 'smartdrive' loses its marbles, or if a program with a rogue pointer scribbles on DOS' buffers, or if some twonk hits RESET while the FAT is being updated, or if DOS/Win/whatever takes a dive while the FAT is in an inconsistent state. None of the MS FAT filesystem drivers seem to place much emphasis on maintaining filesystem consistency. > Terry Lambert -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ ]] Collector of old Unix hardware. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605070203.LAA18048>