Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3

[Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>]

Hello!

On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:17:47AM +0100, Anders Widman wrote:
> >> I've used ReiserFS in the past, but have also used ext3 on my
> >> user's important
> >> data (/home) after a good chunk of one drive was converted to
> >> sparse/null files due to a screwup stemming from no 'badblocks' support
> >> in reiserfs.  Since then, i've used ext3 as well as Reiser but recently
> > I can't comment on your experience, but personally if I have a drive with
> > any number of badblocks (which are showing up to the fs layer, not invisibly
> > re-mapped by the drive) then I take the drive back and get a replacement, or
> > bin the drive.
> However,  the FS SHOULD support handling of bad blocks/clusters at the

Well, the FS itself support this. Kind of ;)
Just mark bad blocks are "used".
Of course this does not work when bad block is in journal (solved with
relocate/custom journal) or in bitmap block.
Said that, I know that ext3 does not do very well if there is a bad block
in the journal area.
Another problem is write errors (especially into journal areas). I do not
know about ext3, but reiserfs just fails in such a case, though I know
that SuSE people are working on resolving this problem.

> FS  layer,  even  while running in a production system. Bad blocks can
> pop  up  at any give time for no particular reason, and it is at these
> times  you  (we) need a strong and reliable filesystem that can handle
> and logically remap broken blocks/sectors.

Hm. None of existing filesystems for Linux can do this to my knowledge.

Bye,
    Oleg