Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Tux3 File-System Gains Initial FSCK Implementation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,901

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    So why should anyone want to use this?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote 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)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Online fsck is nice. Good file systems avoid errors though.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,900

    Default

    Quote 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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,900

    Default

    Quote 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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    92

    Default

    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).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    597

    Default

    Quote 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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •