Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:15:40 +0200 From: Nicolas Rachinsky <list@rachinsky.de> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dangerous situation with shutdown process Message-ID: <20050716141540.GA51103@pc5.i.0x5.de> In-Reply-To: <20050716140754.GA752@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> References: <20050715224650.GA48516@outcold.yadt.co.uk> <200507152342.j6FNg5Tx015427@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> <20050716101657.GA44786@pc5.i.0x5.de> <20050716140754.GA752@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> [2005-07-16 16:07 +0200]: > Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > >> >The track which is corrupted could contain data that wasn't written > >> >to in months. How would the journal help? > >> > >> I don't understand this question. > > > >The track destroyed could contain sectors which are in no way related > >to the sectors the OS is writing to. > > And in what way is that related to the existence or nonexistence > of write barriers and a journal? You wrote before: | If track corruption occurs after the journal is written, it doesn't | matter, since at boot the journal will be replayed and all operations | will be performed once more. > If you pound the disk with a hammer, it will most likely break, > no matter what strategy you're using. > That you cannot eliminate _all_ sources of error with a strategy > doesn't mean that you shouldn't implement it to minimize the number > of errors that could happen. I'm not argumenting for or against write barriesrs or a journal. Nicolas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050716141540.GA51103>