Re: Reiser4 status: benchmarked vs. V3 (and ext3)

Nikita Danilov
2003-07-25T12:42:20Z

Tupshin Harper writes:
> Nikita Danilov wrote:
>
> >Daniel Egger writes:
> > >
> > > How failsafe is it to switch off the power several times? When the
> > > filesystem really works atomically I should have either the old or the
> > > new version but no mixture. Does it still need to fsck or is the
> > > transaction replay done at mount time? In case one still needs fsck,
> > > what's the probability of needing user interaction? How long does it
> > > need to get a filesystem back into a consistent state after a powerloss
> > > (approx. per MB/GB)?
> >
> >I should warn everybody that reiser4 is _highly_ _experimental_ at this
> >moment. Don't use it for production.
> >
> I'd like to ask this question differently: How failsafe is reiserfs4
> *theoretically*. Assuming no bugs in implementation, what is the true
> import of its atomic nature? Strengths and potential weaknesses?

Assuming no bugs in implementation it is very safe. :-)

This is lengthy topic. You may wish to read documents on the
namesys.com. For example,

http://www.namesys.com/v4/reiser4_the_atomic_fs.html

>
> -Thanks
> -Tupshin
>

Nikita.