Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:21:51 +0200 From: Teufel <bsd@kuehlbox.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: gjournal and Softupdates Message-ID: <45084C3F.1030600@kuehlbox.de> In-Reply-To: <20060913153909.GE70245@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <45066E19.2040405@kuehlbox.de> <ee5vat$fcb$1@sea.gmane.org> <ygfirjto0z2.fsf@dominion.borderworlds.dk> <20060913142329.GC70245@garage.freebsd.pl> <450823B1.2090809@kuehlbox.de> <20060913153909.GE70245@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >> [...] If so, this would be an advantage over SU, as >> it does surely not use the new introduced BIO_FLUSH. [...] >> > Soft-updates doesn't handle disk write caches at all. > you're totaly right. I was refering to the assumption of SU that the drive cache will not "lie" about its handling. >> [...] In the other hand i've seen couple of other JFS that went corrupt for "no reason". I don't want to be paranoid, but i >> really want to be "sure" that the design is trustable. >> > > Of course a bug in file system (or gjournal) implementation is still > possible and can lead to file system corruption, but such a bug can > still corrupt file system in the way it will not be fixable by fsck. > sooner or later bugs should be fixed. At least i will do some terrible test to gjournal in the next days. So in case expect some feedback. > From what I saw, file systems with journaling still enforce fsck every X > reboots or on the next reboot after Y days of uptime, whatever comes first. > That is also my experience. So hopefully gjournal will be an exception for this in the future :-) Thanks for clarifying and the great job. Stephan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45084C3F.1030600>