From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:32:42 +0300 Message-ID: <3E4C392A.2070909@namesys.com> References: <3E4AA902.86F15815@interface-ag.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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"; format="flowed" To: Zygo Blaxell Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com Zygo Blaxell wrote: >>Hans Reiser wrote (in response to Anders Widman): >> >> >>>If we handle the journal block error without downtime, the user will >>>never chuck the hard drive, and that is bad in the longterm. >>> >>> >>Not agreed, unless you continue without a warning. >> >> > >I'd prefer to continue in read-only mode, and refuse further read-write >mounts with an error until the filesystem is fscked. > Yes, I agree with that. > I really like >systems that can still boot and let me (attempt to) run diagnostic >tools even when they're otherwise really unhealthy. I don't care if >recently written data is corrupt or missing--I probably didn't write to >the diagnostic tools within the last journal interval, and if the >filesystem is read-only I can't make any metadata corruption worse. > >I would think that most people notice that something's wrong if they >can't write to their filesystems any more. I certainly wouldn't want >the filesystem to be modified if there's something known to be wrong >with the metadata. But if I can't read any of the data at all because >some tiny part of it is suspicious, I just get annoyed. :-P > > > Agreed. I think that this is actually what we do currently. Oleg, can you check that? -- Hans