[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NT vs Linux



Quoth Yedidya Bar-david on Thu, Jun 10, 1999:
> I must add, that there are things that e2fsck can't fix at all - e.g.
> I once had a hardware problem, and fsck moved some files to
> /lost+found, with permissions that didn't let me delete them
> no matter what I did.

Something like that once happened to me on Linux, too.

> OTOH, just today my colleague reinstalled NT on a server with 4
> data disks, and the new NT could not recognize 2 of them (each
> had an NTFS partition on the whole disk).

NT is Not There, no further proof is needed.

> You can't fsck (chkdsk?) an unrecognized fs, can you?

I don't think you can.  But then, who am I to talk about
abdominations like NT?  I don't touch this shit.

> > > 	Usually I silently press reset on linux box to answer customer
> > > question: "What happened if power go away?"
> > 
I wrote:
> > Hmm.  Usually I just silently cut my hand with a knife to answer
> > customer question: "What happened if you are not careful and cut
> > yourself accidentially?".  Surely, the body will heal itself in
> > few days, but it's not the desirable situation.
> 
> Although I agree, if you do it after 30 (as a default) seconds of
> total inactivity, and let update sync, you are (almost) completely
> safe.

True.  But it's the word 'almost' that buggers me.  UNIX
filesystems (ufs, ffs, ext2) are designed to be reliable in case
of power failure, but it's not 100% guarranteed.

Vadik.

-- 
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to
provide a test load.