From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966122AbXDIQOL (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:14:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S966118AbXDIQOK (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:14:10 -0400 Received: from gepetto.dc.ltu.se ([130.240.42.40]:44761 "EHLO gepetto.dc.ltu.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966120AbXDIQOI (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:14:08 -0400 Message-ID: <461A6590.20501@student.ltu.se> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:10:56 +0200 From: Richard Knutsson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: johnrobertbanks@fastmail.fm CC: Christer Weinigel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: Reiser4. BEST FILESYSTEM EVER - Christer Weinigel References: <46157B5B.5000602@gmail.com> <1175817921.18400.1183285196@webmail.messagingengine.com> <461592FB.5060507@zytor.com> <1175819681.20754.1183287946@webmail.messagingengine.com> <461596DE.2020802@zytor.com> <1175823288.25662.1183293506@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4615C780.5040407@zytor.com> <1175833931.8916.1183307802@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20070407191715.GG3510@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <1175993097.32498.1183512070@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1176069053.31062.1183584012@webmail.messagingengine.com> <461973AD.5060906@student.ltu.se> <1176095658.16239.1183614988@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <1176095658.16239.1183614988@webmail.messagingengine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org johnrobertbanks@fastmail.fm wrote: > On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, "Richard Knutsson" > said: > >> Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you >> referenced to in a reply... >> > > TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed. > Oh, took it to be from 5-6 sources... >> + you have repeated the same statement several times, that is >> not the best way of convincing people. >> > > I know you DON'T believe that, as you are about the tenth person to > repeat that "repeating stuff has no effect." > Why should we change our response to the same error? The only solution to this loop is when people stops answering you and you "lose". >> I believe you picked up the "anti-Reiser religion"-phrase from previous >> rant-wars (otherwise, why does that "religion"-phrase always come up, >> and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been >> some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing >> with this matter. >> > > NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against > Reiser4. > > Hence the term "anti-Reiser religion." > Please, don't address someone you meet for the first time as "you people"! Yes, we do _work_ together, it is a community and as a community you have to follow the social rules agreed upon. Without all those pro-Reiser peoples who knew how to work with the rest, there would not be a ResierFS/Reiser3 in the kernel. Unfortunately, Hans is in this case his own worst enemy and has ruffed quite a few feathers over the time. I don't think you would like someone who tells you "if you do it my way, then you are doing it wrong"... But personally, even if I find Hans a bit too strong-headed, he got some interesting design-ideas and the Reiser-filesystem is something I think many find interesting as a concept but not yet trust-worthy for their own machines. >> Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed >> binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage? >> > > I might be. I don't really know how to set it all up. > > Perhaps if you guided me through it. > Am not sure how much help I would be but from the responses to your benchmark-list, there seems to be many who could help you. But first I think you should set up a system to test on, and then after some tests and made the result public, there will (most likely) be people who ask you to test it in some specific way. >> I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, >> screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then >> returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for >> corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it? >> > > Yeah, I can't see how the OS could read the love-letter either. > > But one thing is for sure. The FS ain't responsible for reading it. > And no-one has asked the file-system to _read_ the disk, but to be designed to help restore the file-structure. This I have found to be the main-point people complains about. It is like arguing against air-bags in a car. Of course the car should not be responsible for preventing accidents, but they are designed so _if_ it happens, you should not be totally screwed. >> Yes, it should not >> assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the >> file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data? >> > > It's a tough ask of any FS. > > Microsoft's filesystem checker totally roasted all my data on an XP-box > last night. > Sorry to hear that, but two wrongs does not make it right. Richard Knutsson