Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Tux3 File-System Gains Initial FSCK Implementation

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Quote 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

  2. #12

    Default

    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.

    Quote 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 at 08:16 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Quote 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

Posting Permissions

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