Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:39:59PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
> >
> > With this I agree, but before you start thinking that Windows is the
> > only OS that qualifies, consider this: I've run the "pull the plug"
> > test under early Linux 2.4 kernels running with ReiserFS. I'd start a
> > make of a large project, pull the power, bring the system back up, and
> > restart the build. And the end result was that some of the files
> > files in the build directory were corrupted, such that the build could
> > not continue.
>
> Afaik, ReiserFS does not guarantee data consistency, only meta
> data. As in, the file system itself will be consistent, and an
> fsck shouldn't find a problem.
Exactly. Does NTFS? Not as far as I know. Why should we hold NTFS
to a standard that ReiserFS doesn't meet?
That said, I do agree with Tom that the Windows port is basically
virgin territory and needs to be approached with caution. But we
shouldn't be so cautious that we hesitate to release the port to the
world (sufficient disclaimers are appropriate, as with any new
port)...
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
