News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on HFS+ Bit Rot. Parent comment

Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by iSnow on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @05:37AM (#7877117)
>I used FAT16 for years and years and years and never had a problem. I used FAT32 for the majority of a decade and never had a problem

>I'd trust ext2 over HFS+.

>Yes, I'm bitter.

Unfortunately not only bitter but bitter to the point of senseless argument just of the sake of argument. Trusting a non-journaled FS over a journaled without error correction/detection is a bad choice, like career-limiting bad. And if you never had problems with FATXX then you most likely never used DOS or old Windows seriously. Corrupted data and specifically corrupted MBR was really frequent back then (like corrupted b-trees on the Mac side)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by Dylan16807 on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @12:00PM (#7878692)
Most journals are metadata-only, so they save you from corrupt directories but don't protect contents at all. NTFS loves to wipe out just-written files when I lose power, for example. Files that previously existed, mind you, now suddenly garbage.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by lloeki on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @12:28PM (#7878872)
> And if you never had problems with FATXX then you most likely never used DOS or old Windows seriously

Ah, the joy of "ghost" folders that ended up containing themselves...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:HFS+ Bit Rot by MBCook on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @10:25AM (#7878135)
It's journaled now. I used DOS and Windows for years and never had any real problems (well, on hard drives, floppies were more vulnerable).
[ Parent | on HN ]