4 ms·
I'm trying to understand what exactly this is testing/demonstrating. Like: "Wow, but why should I care?" I'm not sure being able to fsck a random disk image s
by mustache_kimono 3y ago
I'm trying to understand what exactly this is testing/demonstrating.
Like: "Wow, but why should I care?" I'm not sure being able to fsck a random disk image shows resiliency. Doing this could do all sorts of nasty things to data you actually care about.
- grrandalf 3y ago(not the author) The metadata is a contiguous range of disk blocks. I think the intuition is that such layouts are likely to require simpler filesystem code to manipulate. [versus (iirc) ZFS which may have metadata blocks scattered throughout the disk, probably requiring more intricate code to keep track of].
- mustache_kimono 3y ago> [versus (iirc) ZFS which may have metadata blocks scattered throughout the disk, probably requiring more intricate code to keep track of]. So -- you think redundant metadata is a bad thing? Try wiping your metadata and then trying to fsck that random disk image. Again, has this been the source of data corruption you're aware of? This seems like a "Maybe, it could be this way, but I don't know" kind of take.