Re: removing an ext2fs file forces disk activity

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 02:11:48PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> writes:
> 
> > > The bugs that happen are *not* merely that you lose occasional object
> > > files.  You can get arbitrary corruption.
> > 
> > And then fsck can repair that in the case of a crash, right?
> 
> No.
> 
> The normal rules--the ones that I describe as "bug free" keep things
> such that fsck can repair them.
> 
> Breaking those rules--thus, what I mean by a "bug"--produces possible
> forms of corruption that cannot be automatically fixed by fsck.

Sorry for my stupidity, but I don't see why fsck can't remove the
corrupted part and replace it with some sane stuff. It knows how the
filesystem should look like, so it can change it so that it will look
like that. Could you please explain why that isn't the case?

> > It would be a lot nicer if glibc would compile a lot faster and have
> > some filesystem corruption *if* there would be a crash. However, there
> > should be no crash in the first place.
> 
> Apparently your local power company is better than the ones we have in
> the US...

That could be because the power company isn't a private company (yet)
and still state-owned which results in a better service. I guess we
have a power failure about once a year. And for that, they invented
UPS. :-)

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

pgpBtONyOt_yj.pgp
Description: PGP signature