Subject: Re: FFS reliability problems
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/18/2002 18:55:24
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:47:15PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> >> 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.
> As I think someone else already said, this won't catch all deleted
> files, only those that still exist as inodes but just have no directory
> entries pointing to them (ie, those that were still open at the point
> of failure).
Yes, of course. This can still be significant in some case.
> >> at least optionally (ie, as an option to fsck_ffs).
> > optionally is't OK with me
> I'm not sure whether that's a typo for "isn't" or for "it's". Based on
> general context I assume it's the latter.
Yes, I meant "it's"
Manuel Bouyer <email@example.com>