From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain (by way of Sam Vilain ) Subject: Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:18:33 +1300 Sender: Sam Vilain Message-ID: <200302141318.33057.sam@vilain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Zygo Blaxell Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:42, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > Last time I checked, Windows and Mac OS come to a near total halt when > they see a disk error while doing a write on non-removable media, unles= s > the application goes to extraordinary lengths to handle the error > itself. Perhaps it might, but it sure does a good job of cleaning them up with ScanDisk. And it almost certainly won't BSOD for a bad sector. My experience is that it partially hangs the system while it retries the write, but eventually comes back and the application either has died or returns an error. I actually think it's comparitively graceful. I mean, Windows might crash if you sneeze at it for no reason whatsoever, but it handles disk errors quite well most of the time. Baby's First FileSystem (FAT) just doesn't have any structure to lose, which sure makes it resilient. Even if you get a bad block in the FAT it survives, because there are two copies of it! Windows doesn't handle resetting the IDE bus when it needs it very well, I've seen one disk that didn't work in Windows but worked passably in Linux because of this. Of course it died a few months later :-). -- Sam Vilain, sam@vilain.net Real software engineers like C's structured constructs, but they are suspicious of it because they have heard that it lets you get "close to the machine."