News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on rm -r fs/ext3. Parent comment

Re:rm -r fs/ext3 by lmm on Thursday July 23, 2015 @04:13AM (#9934551)
XFS always had the trailing zeroes problem. And has no FSCK if your filesystem gets really messed up.

I still use reiserfs when I have to run linux (these days I'm mostly FreeBSD with ZFS).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:rm -r fs/ext3 by the_why_of_y on Thursday July 23, 2015 @02:14PM (#9937484)
The zeroes problem (which was mostly caused by applications not using fsync when they should) was fixed in 2007.

http://www.xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Why_do_I_see_binary_...

Also, there's xfs_repair(8).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:rm -r fs/ext3 by nickpsecurity on Thursday July 23, 2015 @04:56PM (#9938463)
Awesome! I was having a hard time believing such a big problem would get no attention all this time. Good to know they knocked it out.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:rm -r fs/ext3 by nickpsecurity on Thursday July 23, 2015 @12:50PM (#9936934)
My application-layer file management avoided the issues. To be honest, I didn't even know what they were other than a lack of FSCK. Problems happened, they were corrected, and so on. It's an attitude I learned from research into cluster storage and safety-critical systems.

That said, this does seem to be a big problem for anyone depending on XFS by itself. Sounds like filesystem developers should dig in and fix that zero's problem among any other that are known. Just seems wasteful to ditch such a good, battle-hardened filesystem over a few bugs. Better to just fix them.

[ Parent | on HN ]