From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n3MLjNPM226006 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:45:24 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B2BBF232879 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from one.firstfloor.org (one.firstfloor.org [213.235.205.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id kDz8CIGhseAzxyUX for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: fsck.xfs proposed improvements From: Andi Kleen References: <20090421142333.GA5197@fysh.org> <49EE441E.6040606@thebarn.com> <20090422094527.GA16600@fysh.org> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:45:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20090422094527.GA16600@fysh.org> (Mike Ashton's message of "Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:45:27 +0100") Message-ID: <87ws9cnz14.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Mike Ashton Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Mike Ashton writes: > With badly behaved hardware, > which seem prevalent, or any bugs which do get into xfs we could > actually end up with xfs being less fault tolerant and less reliable > in general use than other filesystems, which would be a bit of a > shame. Most Linux file systems are not very fault tolerant in this sense; e.g. on ext3 you have have to press return and accept lots of scary messages to get through fsck. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs