Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:35:05 -0400 | From | rmoser <> | Subject | Re: File System conversion -- ideas |
| |
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 6/29/2003 at 8:28 PM Jamie Lokier wrote:
>Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote: >> I think that filesystem conversion on-the-fly is useless. Why? If you're >> making conversion of filesystem, you have to make good backup of data >> from that filesystem. > >I disagree with this statement. >
Me too. It's a GOOD IDEA. But... heck we don't all have tape backups.
>> It is likely that when something goes wrong during >> conversion (power loss) filesystem will be corrupted, and data will be >> lost. > >Only if the converter stores a temporarily inconsistent state on the >filesystem. Sometimes it is possible to write a converter where the >filesystem is in a consistent state throughout, except perhaps during >a critical transition from one filesystem type to the other. >
Dude come on I said put a journal in the datasystem so you DON'T get inconsistencies like that! (A roll-back journal)
>> If you think the data is not worth to make backup - you don't have >> to convert it. Just delete worthless filesystem, and create new one. >> I >> the data is worth making backup, and finally you make it - you don't >> need to convert it. > >You are discounting the existence of data which is valuable enough not >to have deleted already, yet which is not valuable enough to backup. >I'd count local mirrors in this category: backup is too expensive, yet >the cost of recreating the mirror is significant (days of >downloading), therefore worth keeping if possible. >
Mmhmm
>Also MP3 & DIVX collections etc. If you lose them it's not the end of >the world, but you'd rather not. >
HEY! It IS the end of the world if I lose /data/audio !!!!!!! I can't code without music!
>> You could just delete filesystem, and restore data >> from copy. If in turn one think the data is worth to protect it from >> loss, but he will not do it... he risks that the data will be lost, and >> he should not get access to such things. > ^^^^^^ > >It may not be worth it to _you_, but to me the cost of spare disks is >significant enough that I choose to risk my less valuable data. It's >my data hence my choice. >
You forgot something. I only risk bugs in the code, that's why there's a journal. You can have a bug in the filesystem code. You're taking the same risks doing the conversion that you are mounting th efilesystem.
>> I think that copying data to another filesystem, and restoring it to >> newly created is most of the time best and fastest method of converting >> filesystems. > >You are right that this diminishes the value of an in-place filesystem >converter (and defragmenter), because it is not necessary if you have >the foresight to use multiple partitions or LVM, and enough spare disk >space.q >
Erm? Not everyone has spare disk space or wants to be assed with it. Those methods take more work.
>However it would still be useful to some people, some of the time. > >Consider that many people choose ext3 rather than reiser simply >because it is easy to convert ext2 to ext3, and hard to convert ext2 >to reiser (and hard to convert back if they don't like it). I have >seen this written by many people who choose to use ext3. Thus proving >that there is value in in-place filesystem conversion :) >
that's me. I cite that I want to go from reiser3.6 to reiser4, but I have only one reiser3.6. I used to have all reiserfs, and yes it was a lot faster. Now I want it back.
>-- Jamie
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |