[openbeos] Re: Robustness
- From: guillaume.maillard@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:47:54 +0200
> I have thought on adding such functionality to the fs (as I've written
> such tools), but I am really against it. And this has nothing to do
> with simplicity.
Of course, it's not simple, but CAN be done.
> IMHO a fs *should* not be able to read corrupt disks - robustness means
> that it shouldn't crash when it tries to read corrupt data, it does not
> mean it should be able to read every piece of crap you're throwing at
> it, it should only be able to deal with it.
I agree with you, the FS should be able to do 'its best', it can fail
to read some data, but not react as mentioned : prevent you to mount
on readonly the FS because a cluster died and corrupted the cache of
your preferred browser.
> IMO only a bad fs would allow you to have write access on such a disk.
> Not being able to work
> normally with your disk in case of a hardware failure is a feature, not
> a bug.
I just mentioned read only access ;) Write access is dangerous,
and a policy of recovery if even more dangerous.
> I would prefer a car that won't let me use it when it's clear that it
> will not survive the next tour
And when you are driving, if something failed (like the lights :) )
do you preffer that the car stops and just says "change the light to continue"?
:)
What's more, keep in mind that when something goes wrong on an harddisk
it's often localy. It's amazing to see that BFS don't make a backup
periodically of the superblock, it's a precious structure.
Regards,
Guillaume
Other related posts:
