From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:44:12 -0500
Message-ID: <20080109094412.73f3249c@cuia.boston.redhat.com>
References: <200801090022.55589.a1426z@gawab.com>
	<200801090740.12989.a1426z@gawab.com>
	<70b6f0bf0801082345vf57951ey642e35c3d6e5194f@mail.gmail.com>
	<200801091452.14890.a1426z@gawab.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Valerie Henson" <val.henson@gmail.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:45373 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752092AbYAIOoP (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:44:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200801091452.14890.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:52:14 +0300
Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:

> Ok, but let's look at this a bit more opportunistic / optimistic.

You can't play fast and loose with data integrity.

Besides, if we looked at things optimistically, we would conclude
that no fsck will be needed, ever :)
 
> > http://infohost.nmt.edu/~val/review/chunkfs.pdf

You will really want to read this paper, if you haven't already.

-- 
All Rights Reversed