Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Anders Widman wrote:

>
>  
>
>>If we handle the journal block error without downtime, the user will
>>never chuck the hard drive, and that is bad in the longterm.
>>    
>>
>
>  But  a  user  never  knows  he  has  a media error before his system
>  crashes  (or  do  a surface scan), or monitor his logs very closely.
>  Not all users does this.
>
>  To  me  a FS should be able to handle both read and write errors and
>  be  able to reallocate these errors to a sane are of the media. When
>  this  occurs then it should be noted in the kernel log (or similar).
>
>  Then  users can run a cron job to monitor the log after exactly this
>  error message.
>
>  The  whole  point  is  this that errors can occur at any time when a
>  system  is  up  and  running and it _always_ takes some time for the
>  user  to  react  and find out about the problem. In the time between
>  the  error  has  occurred  and  the  when the user finds out and can
>  administer it, then we need a solid and secure FS that can manage to
>  run  the  system and protect the data (which is why we choose one FS
>  over the other).
>
>  To  my  knowledge  only  Windows  with  NTFS  can handle just this -
>  relocating  bad  blocks  on  the fly and notifying the user such has
>  happened.
>
>  - Anders
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Yes, you are probably right, we should do it for those cases where it is 
feasible. 

-- 
Hans