Re: Need to remove a ghost file, but can't because it doesn't exist
On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 06:43:06PM -0500, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>
> I have recently switched from reiserfs to jfs. Reiserfs v3 hasn't
> seen much action lately. V4 is in some sort of limbo. Given the
> sordid tale of the disappearance of Reiser's estranged wife and Hans
> Reiser's subsequent arrest, I figured I would like to try something
> else.
>
> Since IBM is taking the brunt of SCO, why not take a look at JFS? I
> look around for info on JFS, but there isn't all that much out on the
> web.
>
> So far so good, but then again, I was largely happy with reiserfs over
> the past 4 or so years. I must not tax my systems too hard with
> panic reboots.
>From what I hear, reiserfs and ext3 are both reasonably protected
against panic reboots -- the hard drives will have written or not
written the journal, and remounting the file system will figure out what
happened. What they have a hard time with is panic powerdowns --
because of the behaviour of some IDE drives -- apparently they report
data transfer complete when they have merely buffered it internally,
expecting it to be written real soon now. If the power fails before
this happens, the file system will assume data have been written which
in fact have not been written, and this could caouse journal failure.
I'm told that some of those hard drives have enought capacitance
internally to continue to write the cached data even if the power does
fail on them. If sop, that's OK, but you may have little chance of
finding out what's really happening and knowing for wure that your data
are safe.
ext2, I'm told, has just enough extra redundancy that is is possible to
make a reasonable guess as th owhat's wrong by an fsck. rumour has it
that reiser, which stored data in a tree structure that's somewhat
independent of the file-system structure, is more vulnerable to problens
like confusing data with file-system structure.
I don't know what the situatin is with JFS. Anybody know?
-- hendrik
Reply to: