[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e692861c0607311400x412d2e6bv71f474ea959c9e00@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:00:14 -0400
From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell@...il.com>
To: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "Clay Barnes" <clay.barnes@...il.com>,
"Rudy Zijlstra" <rudy@...ons.demon.nl>,
"Adrian Ulrich" <reiser4@...nkenlights.ch>, vonbrand@....utfsm.cl,
ipso@...ppymail.ca, reiser@...esys.com, lkml@...productions.com,
jeff@...zik.org, tytso@....edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
reiserfs-list@...esys.com
Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
On 7/31/06, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> Its well accepted that reiserfs3 has some robustness problems in the
> face of physical media errors. The structure of the file system and the
> tree basis make it very hard to avoid such problems. XFS appears to have
> managed to achieve both robustness and better data structures.
>
> How reiser4 compares I've no idea.
Citation?
I ask because your clam differs from the only detailed research that
I'm aware of on the subject[1]. In figure 2 of the iron filesystems
paper that Ext3 is show to ignore a great number of data-loss inducing
failure conditions that Reiser3 detects an panics under.
Are you sure that you aren't commenting on cases where Reiser3 alerts
the user to a critical data condition (via a panic) which leads to a
trouble report while ext3 ignores the problem which suppresses the
trouble report from the user?
*1) http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists