Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tux3 File-System Gains Initial FSCK Implementation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tux3 File-System Gains Initial FSCK Implementation

    Phoronix: Tux3 File-System Gains Initial FSCK Implementation

    The Tux3 file-system has been in development for years while back on 1 January, the file-system work was resurrected. There's now an initial fsck implementation for Tux3...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI4NTg

  • #2
    So why should anyone want to use this?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
      So why should anyone want to use this?
      It is quite possible that Tux3 will get to incremental and online fsck before
      Ext4 does. (There you go, Ted, that is a challenge.) There is no question that
      this is something that every viable, modern filesystem must do, and no,
      scrubbing does not cut the mustard. We need to be able to detect errors on the
      filesystem, perhaps due to blocks going bad, or heaven forbid, bugs, then
      report them to the user and *fix* them on command without taking the volume
      offline. If that seems hard, it is. But it simply has to be done.
      Because online fsck is awesome.

      (Also if i understood correctly the layout should work wonders with spinning media. And also result in wear-leveling on ssd:s)

      Comment


      • #4
        Online fsck is nice. Good file systems avoid errors though.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
          Online fsck is nice. Good file systems avoid errors though.
          Umm. You cannot avoid errors if say your hard disk is failing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
            Online fsck is nice. Good file systems avoid errors though.
            Errors happen, bugs happen. Its the nature of software. You do the best you can, but a bug will always find a way in. Plus hardware fails as Rahul pointed out. Thats why its not a "We have the perfect filesystem. Zero errors!" approach. Its a "This is reality. Shit happens. We need to protect against the shit." approach

            Comment


            • #7
              I mean, atomic operations and similar things to avoid errors which are not hardware-sided.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                I mean, atomic operations and similar things to avoid errors which are not hardware-sided.
                Oh =P Still, bugs happen. Better to have a working fsck early on and expand upon it as you add more and more features haha

                Comment


                • #9
                  This file system have a lot of potentiality i hope that everything work the best until, finally, will be ready.

                  I believe that would have the potential to become an enterprise file system something that is not ext4 (since important features such as snapshots are not present) but remained far lighter (so usable even on old machine with few resource) respect Btrfs (that is a sort of an elephant so we need not wonder that despite the support it receives isn't never ready as default file system and anyway require too much resource).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                    Umm. You cannot avoid errors if say your hard disk is failing.
                    ... let alone random bit errors due to, say, background radiation.

                    - Gilboa
                    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB + 2x3TB, GTX780, F21/x86_64, Dell U2711.
                    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F21/x86_64, Dell U2412..
                    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F21/x86-64.
                    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F21/x86_64.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by alelinuxbsd View Post
                      This file system have a lot of potentiality i hope that everything work the best until, finally, will be ready.

                      I believe that would have the potential to become an enterprise file system something that is not ext4 (since important features such as snapshots are not present) but remained far lighter (so usable even on old machine with few resource) respect Btrfs (that is a sort of an elephant so we need not wonder that despite the support it receives isn't never ready as default file system and anyway require too much resource).
                      Concerning missing snapshots, ext4 doesn't really it need it if you're using LVM.
                      (As I type this, the LVM on this workstation is busy merging back a snapshot take before a botched upgrade attempt from F17 to F18...)

                      - Gilboa
                      DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB + 2x3TB, GTX780, F21/x86_64, Dell U2711.
                      SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F21/x86_64, Dell U2412..
                      BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F21/x86-64.
                      LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F21/x86_64.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It is quite possible that Tux3 will get to incremental and online fsck before
                        Ext4 does. (There you go, Ted, that is a challenge.) There is no question that
                        this is something that every viable, modern filesystem must do, and no,
                        scrubbing does not cut the mustard. We need to be able to detect errors on the
                        filesystem, perhaps due to blocks going bad, or heaven forbid, bugs, then
                        report them to the user and *fix* them on command without taking the volume
                        offline. If that seems hard, it is. But it simply has to be done.
                        ZFS's online scrub is sufficient because of it is atomic copy-on-write transaction commit, uberblock history and ditto blocks.

                        Originally posted by gilboa View Post
                        Concerning missing snapshots, ext4 doesn't really it need it if you're using LVM.
                        (As I type this, the LVM on this workstation is busy merging back a snapshot take before a botched upgrade attempt from F17 to F18...)

                        - Gilboa
                        LVM snapshots do not guarantee filesystem integrity. There is a filesystem freeze hack in Linux that is used to try to prevent filesystem corruption, but it does nothing it you are using a hypervisor and then snapshot from the host.
                        Last edited by ryao; 01-31-2013, 07:16 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ryao View Post
                          LVM snapshots do not guarantee filesystem integrity. There is a filesystem freeze hack in Linux that is used to try to prevent filesystem corruption, but it does nothing it you are using a hypervisor and then snapshot from the host.
                          True, but at least in reality, one can run fsck before calling snapshot or even while the snapshot is active.
                          Granted, ZFS does have the upper hand here (and maybe, in the long run btrfs), but as it stands, LVM+ext4 is a *very* powerful (and proven) combination.

                          - Gilboa
                          DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB + 2x3TB, GTX780, F21/x86_64, Dell U2711.
                          SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F21/x86_64, Dell U2412..
                          BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F21/x86-64.
                          LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F21/x86_64.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X