Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:52:45 -0400 From: Jim <stapleton.41@gmail.com> To: "Ruben de Groot" <mail25@bzerk.org>, Jim <stapleton.41@gmail.com>, "Roland Smith" <rsmith@xs4all.nl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: filesystem information Message-ID: <80f4f2b20807010652w3a5215fas1f62ff682606e444@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080701091048.GA31499@ei.bzerk.org> References: <80f4f2b20806300401x71483882x8e9a6cf919f1ff9@mail.gmail.com> <20080630073059.be11304d.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <80f4f2b20806300930p67ca1fd5xf9ad59d16889df36@mail.gmail.com> <20080630170400.GB65282@slackbox.xs4all.nl> <80f4f2b20806301212n1bf6137bq75f40464212c2304@mail.gmail.com> <20080701091048.GA31499@ei.bzerk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Just a thought, but in normal circumstances files *are* written to, > even when they are just being read: the access time is updated (unless > you mount the fs with the noatime flag). > quite true, but isn't that file metadata and not the actual file? I thought most filesystems had a file-entry section, with all the metadata, permissions, etc, and a file data section, which contains the information of the actual file. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if the metadata being edited were corrupted, but to corrupt the file data/location seems odd to me. Especially with soft updates; unless I'm mistaken, that's what it is supposed to minimise. -Jim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?80f4f2b20807010652w3a5215fas1f62ff682606e444>