[FoRK] So why the fuck aren't checksums built into the fucking filesystem?

Justin Mason jm
Tue Jul 12 16:34:55 PDT 2005


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


ext3 supports software-RAID striping, no problem.  (I'm using it myself
for a similar application, although not quite on that scale ;)

FYI, the exact version of the buggy NTFS: 'it was the old ntfs ver 4 used
by NT (service pack 3 I think). Since the switch to w2k and ntfs v5 it
hasn't happened again.'

- --j.

Joe Barrera writes:
> Aw crap. OK. The problem is that I have one tower that I use as a file 
> server,
> with everything else as laptops (albeit with a couple firewire/usb2 disks).
> And it's using several NTFS striped disks (60 or 80 GB each) to build
> ~300 GB virtual disks. So I'm going to have to do a lot of shuffling to get
> this all over onto ext3, assuming it supports striping (I assume it does).
> If it doesn't, then this is going to have to wait until I have a couple
> spare 300 GB disks. How irritating.
> 
> BTW I don't think I've ever pushed any of my filesystems past 95%
> capacity, so I don't know if the bug you described would apply.
> 
> - Joe
> 
> Justin Mason wrote:
> 
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> >Joe Barrera writes:
> >  
> >
> >>Luis Villa wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>> Why are you putting mission critical data like mp3s on NTFS? :)
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Sigh. Legacy. Would Linux really do better?
> >>
> >>NTFS is supposed to be a journaling FS -- It really shouldn't
> >>suck as bad as it does.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >but it does.  FWIW, NTFS had an even nastier bug previously.... if an NTFS
> >v4 fs ran out of FAT space (or whatever it is that passes for an inode
> >index over there), it'd simply go haywire and lose track of the
> >filename->data mapping -- undeleteable files, files that reappear after
> >they'd been deleted, and files that appeared fine, but that had no data on
> >inspection.  The latter in particular made for lots of non-functional
> >backups in the case I heard of. ouch.
> >
> >Save yourself a lot of trouble and just use ext3 ;)
> >
> >In my experience, I've never had trouble with ext2 or ext3 filesystems.
> >Reiserfs, now, that's lost data -- and ext2 has had some hairy fscks,
> >but in the ext* case the data was always still there.
> >
> >- --j.
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
> >Comment: Exmh CVS
> >
> >iD8DBQFC1Er5MJF5cimLx9ARAmn5AKCG14eGIHnWNxyAFrKTKTzSjpQcugCgmNW1
> >fCw+2vi16LwLj2Bc5FcAJI0>=jW2i
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFC1FMrMJF5cimLx9ARAjm6AJ0VD2NyPt7hvxOqXAIA+YaAhzIdrwCgrArT
f98L6JCviUnmIORovMpWXlk=
=91wC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the FoRK mailing list