From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 05:39:38 +1300 Sender: Sam Vilain Message-ID: <200302130539.38474.sam@vilain.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Adam Goryachev , reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:12, Adam Goryachev wrote: > I can conceive of a few things that *might* be the right thing in > various circumstances: > > A) Immediately re-mount the drive read-only, and wait for the sysadmin > to either re-mount rw or to do some other data recovery/repair > > B) Immediately dis-mount the drive and wait > > C) OK, I tried to write to sector 1324 so lets just try each consecutiv= e > available sector until it doesn't return an error (possibly marking the > sectors bad/used as we go) > > D) Just return an error to the application Or a mixture... C) with a max limit of, say 5 attempts, then D). And then, later if it=20 gets `really bad', where most I/O operations are failing, then A). But I'd consider it acceptable behaviour for bounds check exceptions (ie,= =20 unreported filesystem corruption) or situations where you have lost a=20 large amount of really critical structural information to invoke B). Muc= h=20 better than an Oops. Whoever made that statement about the hard disk head crashing... now that= 's=20 certainly a laughable suggestion; a hard disk continuing after a head=20 crash. If anything, my experience with disks has been that if they start= =20 failing, you have to sort things out sooner rather than later. --=20 Sam Vilain, sam@vilain.net You can judge your age by the amount of pain you feel when you come in contact with a new idea. JOHN NUVEEN