5 ms·
As someone who has lost data on _EVERY_ single linux filesystem listed in this thread, I can say what I want out of a filesystem is code that hasn't changed for
by StillBored 11y ago
As someone who has lost data on _EVERY_ single linux filesystem listed in this thread, I can say what I want out of a filesystem is code that hasn't changed for years. Once the "filesystem experts" move on to the latest code base, then I start to feel confident about the stability of the ones they left behind. As other said, what I want first out of a fileystem is "boring". I would much rather be restricted to small volumes/files/slow lookup times/etc, than discover a sectors worth of data missing in the middle of my file because the power was lost at the wrong moment 6 months ago.
- ctb_mg 11y agoWhat filesystems would you say provide you with high stability confidence?
- nickpsecurity 11y agoMaking data smaller, slower, etc. doesn't solve the problem. Good design and implementation are what it takes. Wirth's work shows simplifying the interfaces, implementation, and so on can certainly help. Personally, I think the best approach is simple, object-based storage at the lower layer with complicated functionality executing at a higher layer through an interface to it. Further, for reliability, several copies on different disks with regular integrity checks to detect and mitigate issues that build up over time. There are more complex, clustered filesystems that do a a lot more than that to protect data. They can be built similarly. The trick is making the data change, problem detection, and recovery mechanisms simple. Then, each feature is a function that leverages that in a way that's easier to analyze. The features themselves can be implemented in a way that makes their own analysis easier. So on and so forth. Standard practice in rigorous, software engineering. Not quite applied to filesystems...