On 10/10/2014 12:53 PM, Bob Marley wrote: >> >> If true, maybe the closest indication we'd get of btrfs stablity is >> the default enabling of autorecovery. > > No way! I wouldn't want a default like that. > > If you think at distributed transactions: suppose a sync was issued > on both sides of a distributed transaction, then power was lost on > one side, than btrfs had corruption. When I remount it, definitely > the worst thing that can happen is that it auto-rolls-back to a > previous known-good state. I cannot agree. I consider a sane default to have a consistent state with "the recently data written lost", instead of "require the user intervention to not lost anything". To address your requirement, we need a "super sync" command which ensure that the data are in the filesystem and not only in the log (as sync should ensure). BR -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
