Message-ID: <3F204B3B.3040802@tupshin.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:10:19 -0700
From: Tupshin Harper <tupshin@tupshin.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030710
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nikita Danilov <Nikita@Namesys.COM>
CC: Daniel Egger <degger@fhm.edu>, Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       reiserfs mailing list <reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: Reiser4 status: benchmarked vs. V3 (and ext3)
References: <3F1EF7DB.2010805@namesys.com>	<1059062380.29238.260.camel@sonja> <16160.4704.102110.352311@laputa.namesys.com>
In-Reply-To: <16160.4704.102110.352311@laputa.namesys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1096
Lines: 27

Nikita Danilov wrote:

>Daniel Egger writes:
> > 
> > How failsafe is it to switch off the power several times? When the
> > filesystem really works atomically I should have either the old or the
> > new version but no mixture. Does it still need to fsck or is the
> > transaction replay done at mount time? In case one still needs fsck,
> > what's the probability of needing user interaction? How long does it
> > need to get a filesystem back into a consistent state after a powerloss
> > (approx. per MB/GB)?
>
>I should warn everybody that reiser4 is _highly_ _experimental_ at this
>moment. Don't use it for production.
>
I'd like to ask this question differently: How failsafe is reiserfs4 
*theoretically*. Assuming no bugs in implementation, what is the true 
import of its atomic nature? Strengths and potential weaknesses?

-Thanks
-Tupshin

-
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/