From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Drokin Subject: Re: ReiserFS is not suitable for a root FS. Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:31:23 +0400 Message-ID: <20030519103123.GA1122@namesys.com> References: <200305172030.58775.russell@coker.com.au> <3EC61987.5000402@gmx.net> <200305172125.59713.russell@coker.com.au> <3EC6247C.4030605@gmx.net> <20030517121038.GA929@namesys.com> <3EC8B061.6050300@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EC8B061.6050300@gmx.net> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger Cc: ReiserFS Hello! On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:22:25PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > > BTW, were there any news on "reiserfs corruptions on crypto loop mounted devices" tests with 2.4.21-rc2? > Unfortunately, I wasn't successful in reproducing the corruption. OTOH, > I now use reiserfsprogs 3.6.7 instead of 3.6.4 before. Were there any > fixes committed to resize_reiserfs in the meantime? I do not see anything important, just some minor journal opening stuff. > What strikes me as odd is the fact that vs-5150 errors seem to coincide > with resizing when you look at past messages to the list. Yes, this is strange. > Do your data structures grow linearly or to next 2^n bytes with > filesystem size? The last resize operations I tried did not cross any > 2^n bytes boundary, while the ones before corruption crossed 512 MB, > 1024 MB, 2048 MB boundary respectively. No, the resize process only adds one more bitmap for every ~128M of disk space > Another shot in the dark: maybe resize_reiserfs does not update/check > the node level correctly, i.e. it checks against correct values before > resize instead of after resize? When you grow the filesystem, no tree nodes are touched at all. Only size in superblock is updated and new bitmaps are added. Bye, Oleg