Subject: Re: FFS journal
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Pavel Cahyna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/03/2006 21:31:21
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 08:40:09PM +0200, Pavel Cahyna wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:35:58AM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > > To be honest, I think what's needed will be a mostly-physical journal.
> > > It's a physical journal, but you have the ability to flag certain inodes
> > > as being unlinked, so that fsck knows to get rid of them. Also, it's good
> > This won't work if there are more orphaned files than could fit in the
> > journal?
> It's not for orphaned files (ones that have been unlinked yet still are
> active). It's for ones that are in the process of being worked on.
> Thus the list should stay small.
> You could use it for orphaned files, but you would want to limit the
> number and have a way to indicate "more than I can say." But that's true
> of any journal system. It should also be rare.
Ext3fs seems to use a linked list of orphaned files outside the journal.