Re: document ext3 requirements

david
2009-01-05T03:58:38Z

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, Rob Landley wrote:

> On Sunday 04 January 2009 17:30:52 Theodore Tso wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 11:40:52PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Not neccessarily.
>>>
>>> If I have a bit of precious data and lot of junk on the card, I want
>>> to copy out the precious data before the card dies. Reading the whole
>>> media may just take too long.
>>>
>>> That's probably very true for rotating harddrives after headcrash...
>>
>> For a small amount data, maybe; but the number of seeks is often far
>> more destructive than the amount of time the disk is spinning. And in
>> practice, what generally happens is the user starts looking around to
>> make sure there wasn't anything else on the disk worth saving, and now
>> data is getting copied off based on human reaction time. So that's
>> why I normally advise users that doing a full image copy of the disk
>> is much better than, say, "cp -r /home/luser /backup", or cd'ing
>> around a filesystem hierarchy and trying to save files one by one.
>
> That would be true if the disk hardware wasn't doing a gazillion retries to
> read a bad sector internally (taking 5 seconds to come back and report
> failure), and then the darn scsi layer added another gazillion retries on top
> of that, and the two multiply together to make it so slow that that when you
> leave the thing copying the disk overnight it's STILL not done 24 hours later.
> Going in and cherry picking individual files looks kind of appealing in that
> situation.

I've also had cases where one particular spot on the drive is bad. any
attempt to read that sector fails and causes the drive to error out until
a reboot. grabbing individual files I could skip the file(s) in the
affected portion and retreive everything else on the drive (or in some
cases raid array with multiple failures)

David Lang