Re: removing an ext2fs file forces disk activity

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 03:06:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> writes:
> 
> > Sorry for my stupidity, but I don't see why fsck can't remove the
> > corrupted part and replace it with some sane stuff. It knows how the
> > filesystem should look like, so it can change it so that it will look
> > like that. Could you please explain why that isn't the case?
> 
> In the normal case--with properly ordered writes, you can write a fsck
> which will guarantee a clean-up without loss of data.
> 
> If you drop the ordering guarantees, then you can no longer have an
> automatic fsck which can clean up without loss of data.  And the lost
> data could be *anything* in these kinds of cases.

But I was talking about a filesystem where it doesn't matter if there
is data loss in the case of a crash. For example, I wouldn't care if
the data of my glibc build is lost or corrupted. In that case we don't
need it and providing an option which turns it of would be nice.

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

pgpsHflBW1_pZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature