On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:58:53 +0200, "Richard Knutsson"Oh, took it to be from 5-6 sources...
<ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Wow, I'm impressed. Think you got the record on how many mails you referenced to in a reply...
TWO actually. I guess you are easily impressed.
Why should we change our response to the same error? The only solution to this loop is when people stops answering you and you "lose".+ you have repeated the same statement several times, that is not the best way of convincing people.
I know you DON'T believe that, as you are about the tenth person to
repeat that "repeating stuff has no effect."
Please, don't address someone you meet for the first time as "you people"!I believe you picked up the "anti-Reiser religion"-phrase from previous rant-wars (otherwise, why does that "religion"-phrase always come up, and (almost) only when dealing with Reiser-fs), and yes, there has been some clashes caused by both sides, so please be careful when dealing with this matter.
NO. You people simply come across as zealots who work together, against
Reiser4.
Hence the term "anti-Reiser religion."
Am not sure how much help I would be but from the responses to your benchmark-list, there seems to be many who could help you. But first I think you should set up a system to test on, and then after some tests and made the result public, there will (most likely) be people who ask you to test it in some specific way.Would you be willing to benchmark Reiser4 with some compressed binary-blob and show the time as well as the CPU-usage?
I might be. I don't really know how to set it all up.
Perhaps if you guided me through it.
And no-one has asked the file-system to _read_ the disk, but to be designed to help restore the file-structure. This I have found to be the main-point people complains about.I may have missed something, but if my room-mate took my harddrive, screwed it open, wrote a love-letter on the disk with a pencil and then returned it (ok, there may be some more plausible reasons for corruption), is the OS really suppose to handle it?
Yeah, I can't see how the OS could read the love-letter either.
But one thing is for sure. The FS ain't responsible for reading it.
Sorry to hear that, but two wrongs does not make it right.Yes, it should not assign any new data to those blocks but should it not also fall into the file-systems domain to be able to restore some/all data?
It's a tough ask of any FS.
Microsoft's filesystem checker totally roasted all my data on an XP-box
last night.