Subject: Re: FFS reliability problems
To: None <tech-kern@netbsd.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/12/2002 13:13:41
>> fsck's raison d'etre [...] is impossible to do this in the
>> circumstances described without either losing or recovering the data
>> in question.
> The data was lost when the application unlinked it.
...?? Then how can the application continue working with it? This is
clearly some strange new meaning of "lost".
>> and the price is so low that I don't consider it bloat even though I
>> will probably never use the option
> Options that aren't used are bloat - no matter how little the code
> changes are.
I will probably never use mount_filecore, either; does that make it
bloat? I said "I will probably never use", not "it will probably never
be used". I have other tools I'd use in this circumstance.
>> You really think this sort of lossage will happen only once in my
>> (or greywolf's) career?
> No, but I suspect that you'd be so sick of the option re-attaching
> files that weren't supposed to be, that you would not have it
> enabled, then [the problem strikes]
Maybe. I very rarely see fsck clearing files on reboot at all.
> In any case, my rough judgment of what has happened here is that the
> option isn't going to get added anyway
Perhaps not. The patch exists for people who want it; I'm not going to
lose any sleep over whether you manage to keep it out of NetBSD proper.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B