On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 02:27:23PM -0700, Crispin Cowan <email@example.com> wrote:
> How much risk of a corrupted file system do you get from this approach? I'd like to
With reiserfs, zero. (well, zero additional risk).
I wwould guess even with ext2 you get zero additional risk: unless your
machine dies there is no corruption at all. If it dies it might get corrupted
independent of when the last write access was.
Programs relying on safe storage (e.g. MTAs) generally sync their files
(as is required by SMTP for example), and this forces a write.
> spin down my HD on my laptop, but I REALLY depend on this machine as my primary
> workstation, so I'd rather not lose the FS ;-)
Then you have to spin up every xx seconds OR get rid of atime at least for
Hopefully, reiserfs will provide selective noatime,nodiratime,sync flags
-- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / firstname.lastname@example.org |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:05 EST