From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: ixt3 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:22:48 -0600 Message-ID: <20061017092248.GY6221@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <20061017103617.cb1a34c2.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> <20061017085130.GX6221@schatzie.adilger.int> <20061017110637.187ae3c0.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:34241 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423181AbWJQJWv (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:22:51 -0400 To: Jure =?utf-8?B?UGXEjWFy?= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061017110637.187ae3c0.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Oct 17, 2006 11:06 +0200, Jure Pe=C4=8Dar wrote: > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:51:30 -0600 > Andreas Dilger wrote: > > None of the retry code has been looked at. >=20 > This is what I'm mostly interested in ... predictable, well behaving > and tested error handling & recovery. Is ext4 going to be any better > here than ext3? Not unless someone massages the ixt3 code into a form usable in the kernel. I'd suggest you contact the authors if you are interested in doing this work. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.