Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Nikita Danilov <> | Date | Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:57:27 +0400 | Subject | Re: Reiser4 status: benchmarked vs. V3 (and ext3) |
| |
Tupshin Harper writes: > Nikita Danilov wrote: > > >Daniel Egger writes: > > > > > > How failsafe is it to switch off the power several times? When the > > > filesystem really works atomically I should have either the old or the > > > new version but no mixture. Does it still need to fsck or is the > > > transaction replay done at mount time? In case one still needs fsck, > > > what's the probability of needing user interaction? How long does it > > > need to get a filesystem back into a consistent state after a powerloss > > > (approx. per MB/GB)? > > > >I should warn everybody that reiser4 is _highly_ _experimental_ at this > >moment. Don't use it for production. > > > I'd like to ask this question differently: How failsafe is reiserfs4 > *theoretically*. Assuming no bugs in implementation, what is the true > import of its atomic nature? Strengths and potential weaknesses?
Assuming no bugs in implementation it is very safe. :-)
This is lengthy topic. You may wish to read documents on the namesys.com. For example,
http://www.namesys.com/v4/reiser4_the_atomic_fs.html
> > -Thanks > -Tupshin >
Nikita. - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |