←back to thread

144 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
msgodel ◴[] No.44466535[source]
The older I get the more I feel like anything other than the ExtantFS family is just silly.

The filesystem should do files, if you want something more complex do it in userspace. We even have FUSE if you want to use the Filesystem API with your crazy network database thing.

replies(3): >>44466685 #>>44466895 #>>44467306 #
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[] No.44466895[source]
I mean, I'd really like some sort of data error detection (and ideally correction). If a disk bitflips one of my files, ext* won't do anything about it.
replies(3): >>44467338 #>>44468600 #>>44469211 #
timewizard ◴[] No.44467338[source]
> some sort of data error detection (and ideally correction).

That's pretty much built into most mass storage devices already.

> If a disk bitflips one of my files

The likelihood and consequence of this occurring is in many situations not worth the overhead of adding additional ECC on top of what the drive does.

> ext* won't do anything about it.

What should it do? Blindly hand you the data without any indication that there's a problem with the underlying block? Without an fsck what mechanism do you suppose would manage these errors as they're discovered?

replies(3): >>44467434 #>>44467818 #>>44468075 #
ars ◴[] No.44467818[source]
> The likelihood .. of this occurring

That's 10^14 bits for a consumer drive. That's just 12TB. A heavy user (lots of videos or games) would see a bit flip a couple times a year.

replies(3): >>44468204 #>>44469358 #>>44469681 #
1. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.44469358[source]
I'm not really sure how you're supposed to interpret those error rates. The average read error probably has a lot more than 1 flipped bit, right? And if the average error affects 50 bits, then you'd expect 50x fewer errors? But I have no idea what the actual histogram looks like.