Posted Apr 27, 2007 4:39 UTC (Fri) by dlang
(✭ supporter ✭
In reply to: chunkfs
Parent article: Filesystems: chunkfs and reiser4
I agree that the paragraph you mention misses the point of chunkfs. it's not that you avoid dong the fsck on some chunks, it's that you don't have to try and track the state of the entire filesystem at once so the check is faster. if some chunks haven't been modified since they were last chaned (and can therefor be clean) that just speeds up the searh
yes, failing drives can corrupt the filesystem independantly of this, but even with checksums you won't find this sort of corruption until you go looking for it (by trying to access the data).
chunkfs isn't trying to address this sort of low-level problem, it's working at a higher level. there's no reason that chunkfs couldn't be integrated into any filesystem and provide approximatly the same benifits for all of them. the initial proof of concept implementation is being done on ext2, not becouse it's the best low-level filesystem, but becouse it's the easiest to implement.
if things work out as hoped with the ext2 implementation I'm willing to bet that something very similar will start appearing as an option for other filesystems.
to post comments)