Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.orgregardingreiser4 inclusion

From: David Lang
Date: Mon Jul 31 2006 - 16:54:35 EST

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote:

Probably. By the time a few KB of metadata are corrupted, I'm reaching for my backup. I don't care what filesystem it is or how easy it is to edit the on-disk structures.

This isn't to say that having robust on-disk structures isn't a good thing. I have no idea how Reiser4 will hold up either way. But ultimately, what you want is the journaling (so power failure / crashes still leave you in an OK state), backups (so when blocks go bad, you don't care), and performance (so you can spend less money on hardware and more money on backup hardware).

please read the discussion that took place at the filesystem summit a couple weeks ago (available on

one of the things that they pointed out there is that as disks get larger the ratio of bad spots per Gig of storage is remaining about the same. As is the rate of failures per Gig of storage.

As a result of this the idea of only running on perfect disks that never have any failures is becomeing significantly less realistic, instead you need to take measures to survive in the face of minor corruption (including robust filesystems, raid, etc)

David Lang
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at