[cgl_discussion] [cgl_valid] Simulating a system failure to force a filesystem rec overy

Peter Badovinatz tabmowzo at us.ibm.com
Thu Aug 8 08:46:39 PDT 2002

Mika Kukkonen wrote:
> Julie, I agree with your interpretation of issue below. Peter, this
> might be one of items for Req.Spec. 1.1?

Yes, many of the requirements are on the fuzzy side for some of these
points.  We have a session at the F2F for joint validation-requirements
so these items should be key to the agenda.  We need to ensure that the
requirements don't force considerations of specific platforms though,
which was one of the reasons for losing some of the crispness.

Julie's description using O(1) and O(n) is a reasonable way to describe
this point since it refers to the filesystem structure regardless of

To save time, please send me (or the requirements mailing list) these
sorts of items, because some of them may require a bit of discussion to
figure out how to phrase.

> --MiKu
> On ke, 2002-08-07 at 21:11, ext Fleischer, Julie N wrote:
> (...)
> > fsck note
> > =========
> > Note that I also agree the requirements document wording may be incorrect.
> > Somehow, the filesystem needs to be checked on reboot.  The requirements say
> > fsck will not be used, but I don't think that matters.  In fact, fsck
> > *could* be used.  The difference is with a resilient fs, fsck will take O(1)
> > time and with a nonresilient O(n).

Peter R. Badovinatz aka 'Wombat' -- IBM Linux Technology Center
preferred: tabmowzo at us.ibm.com / alternate: wombat at us.ibm.com
These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of IBM, Corp.

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list