On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 01:21:09AM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> The cost is not a crash, the cost is performance sucks.
>
I give a damn for the performance if my filesystem doesn't prove stable.
And I think you can't deny that all reiserfs versions for 2.4 had issues
in that area. _IF_ reiserfs proves stable in the next time I don't see
any reason why this checks should stay in.
For example I've just turned of the debugging on my ext3-using boxens.
Not only ext3 has proven stable, but I also know that if it fails there
is still e2fsck which has proven absolutly reliable in the last years.
Another example is the write support I currently add to my freevxfs driver
(and no, I'm neither working for RedHat nor is it the VxFS module that
played a central role in your 3/2000 conspiration theories): until it has
proven stable for a long time I will not even add a option to turn off
all the consistency checks I've added. I'll give a damn if ext2, reiserfs
or VERITAS will beat me until it is stable.
>
> Are you going to leave it on for future versions of ReiserFS, or just for Linux
> 2.4.2?
I'm not in a position to decide it. But if I'm asked for my opion (again)
the answer will depend on wether reiserfs will be more stable than now
at that point.
Christoph
-- Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX. - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:00:47 EST