Subject: Re: FFS reliability problems
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/17/2002 16:28:13
[ On Friday, May 17, 2002 at 21:58:14 (+0200), Manuel Bouyer wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: FFS reliability problems
> On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 02:42:55PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> > >>> A file with refcount==0 has to be cleared, not reconnected.
> > >> Why does it "[have] to be" cleared rather than being reconnected?
> > > Because it mean it was unlinked.
> > Yes, but why does that mean it "has to be" cleared? I can't see any
> > harm that would come from relinking it
> It's already hard to recover data from /lost+found when something got
> wrong; adding deleted files will make more files to sort and won't help -
> especially if you have to determine the last version of the file.
Presumably not all deleted files would be re-linked -- only those that
some application still had open at the time of the crash. The inode of
a successfully deleted file that was not open at the time of the crash
will already have been cleared....
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>