[Top] [All Lists]

Re: fsck.xfs proposed improvements

To: Mike Ashton <mike@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: fsck.xfs proposed improvements
From: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:45:11 +0200
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20090422094527.GA16600@xxxxxxxx> (Mike Ashton's message of "Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:45:27 +0100")
References: <mailman.0.1240318659.128675.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090421142333.GA5197@xxxxxxxx> <49EE441E.6040606@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20090422094527.GA16600@xxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
Mike Ashton <mike@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> With badly behaved hardware,
> which seem prevalent, or any bugs which do get into xfs we could
> actually end up with xfs being less fault tolerant and less reliable
> in general use than other filesystems, which would be a bit of a
> shame.

Most Linux file systems are not very fault tolerant in this sense;
e.g. on ext3 you have have to press return and accept lots of scary
messages to get through fsck.


ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>