Quoting "Chris Samuel" <chris@csamuel.org>:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:32:43 AM Peter Ross wrote:
Quoting "Andrew McGlashan" <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>:
including a working fsck ability, which is essential.
It's overrated;-)
Not on an experimental filesystem which can have some, umm, interesting bugs at times.. ;-)
The fsck looks more magic than everything else to me (because it has to catch "the unexpected") and if you try "magic" on something that is not fully understood yet.. good luck with that. I see your point. At the moment I go for plan B first (backup/failover) instead of praying that magic helps me if it goes pear-shaped. In that sense it may be a waste of time to write a fsck. However, I can imagine that it helps you to improve the original code. If you write fsck you have to think about "what can go wrong" - and then you are half-way through to fix it (and not relying on fsck). I always avoid software that needs "repair tools" in production. E.g. I hated to work with MySQL 3 and having to fix MyISAM tables and indexes if something went wrong. It took me a while until I wanted to touch MySQL again.. These days I do not even remember what the repair tools look like, and I hope I never have to google for it. Regards Peter