| |||||||||||||
Shared painShared painPosted Feb 8, 2012 19:48 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433)In reply to: Shared pain by neilbrown Parent article: XFS: the filesystem of the future?
Lets just say that governments (and businesses) have wasted billions throwing away applications where the application met the spec but in practice was unfit for purpose.
And a filesystem that throws away user data IS unfit for purpose. After all, what was the point of journalling? To improve boot times after a crash and get the system back into production quicker. If you need to do data integrity check on top of your filesystem check you've just made your reboot times far WORSE - a day or two would not be atypical after a crash!
Cheers,
(Log in to post comments)
Shared pain Posted Feb 8, 2012 20:51 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
The hyperbole is getting a little out of control. Journaled filesystems have traditionally only journaled the metadata so any file data in-flight at the time of a crash would be lost and corruption would be the result. Pre-journaling any filesystem with a write cache would be susceptible to losing in-flight data and corrupting metadata leading to long fsck times after crash to repair the damage. All filesystems lose data in those circumstances, that doesn't mean that all filesystems are unfit for any purpose or that computers are fundamentally unfit for any purpose. The current state of the art is to be safer with regular data writes, even to the point of checksumming everything, that's nice but the world didn't end when this wasn't the case.
|
|||||||||||||