Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 23 Mar 1995 06:54:43 -0500 (EST)
From:      william pechter ILEX <pechter@stars.sed.monmouth.army.mil>
To:        bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Cc:        FreeBSD-hackers@wcarchive.cdrom.com (FreeBSD-hackers)
Subject:   Re: Why IDE is bad
Message-ID:  <199503231155.DAA13542@wcarchive.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: <199503231045.UAA11233@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Mar 23, 95 08:45:18 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Yeah, we all know that but ext2fs is doing it for ages now and they
> >don't have that much more problem with it... It would be great if
> >it worked (for the news spool for example).
> 
> Why don't they have much of a problem with it?  I can think of the following
> possible reasons:
> 
> 1) with more disk updates, there is more likely to be a failure in the
>    middle of an update.
>    a) If the failure is in software and unrelated to the file system
>       (e.g., a panic for a NULL pointer), then synchronous update
>       guarantees that the file system (but not the data) can be fixed up
>       by fsck, but fsck will find problems more often and more data will
>       be lost.  More apparent-problems are bad publicity and lost data
>       is always annoying.
>    b) If the failure is in hardware, then synchronous update
>       doesn't guarantee anything.  Metadata may be half written and
>       you'll be lucky if fsck can't read the bad half.  The higher
>       reliablity of modern drives reduces the disadvantage of
>       synchronous update here.
>    c) If the failure is in software and is related to the file system,
>       then synchronous update doesn't guarantee anything.  Metadata
>       may be scrambled and fsck will normally be able to read it and
>       become confused :-].
> 2) ext2fs may be more robust.  It's never assumed synchronous updates.
> 3) ext2fsck may be better than fsck.
> 4) writing the disk more may wear it out faster.
> 
> Bruce
> 

One question is -- should we just port ext2fs? (There's already a lot of
people experimenting with both FreeBSD and Linux.  There's already a 
read-only port of FFS to Linux.  

One drawback is the need to make ALL the BSD utilities (dump, restore, etc.)
play nice with ext2fs.  (One reason I went to BSD from Linux was the lack
of dump/restore). 

Cpio and tar do not make a backup scheme.

Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bill Pechter |Systems Administrator  | 
 Ilex Systems |170 Patterson Ave      | Shrewsbury, New Jersey 07702       
 908-532-2369 |pechter@sesd.ilex.com  | pechter@stars.sed.monmouth.army.mil



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503231155.DAA13542>