On 7/2/20 4:44 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We're talking about this issue like it's reasonable that xfs and ext4 are going to allow the user to get back a bunch of data they don't know is ok or not. We're also talking about it like the user should be able to carry on his happy merry way. In these cases the drive is dying and needs to be shredded, and a new install needs to happen and a restore from backups needs to happen. Is the btrfs failure much less user friendly? No doubt about it. Is it any comfort at all when a user shows up and we say "where are your backups" and they say "what backups?", no. But if we're going to talk about this like ext4 and xfs are much better because they give you the _appearance_ that your data is fine, that's a bit disingenuous.
If I had talked about it like that, it would have been disingenuous.
But I didn't; this was an investigation of resiliency to metadata corruption, not data error detection, and to what degree metadata corruption can render files or even entire filesystems unreachable after normal administrative recovery efforts.
devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://email@example.com