[TUHS] The evolution of Unix facilities and architecture

[clemc@ccc.com (Clem Cole)]

I should have said -- it was not hypothetical -- George implemented it and
published the code and we all picked it up,

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:

> George Gobble of Purdue did the FS work to V7/4.1 to fix the FS corruption
> issues.   That was taken back by Kirk (wnj) and incorporated in 4.1A.    It
> may have been before USENIX was creating proceedings.   I'll have to look
> on my shelf at home or maybe ask George.
>
> Clem
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>     > From: "Ron Natalie"
>>
>>     > Ordered writes go back to the original BSD fast file system, no?  I
>> seem
>>     > to recall that when we switched from our V6/V7 disks, the
>> filesystem got
>>     > a lot more stable in crashes.
>>
>> I had a vague memory of reading about that, so I looked in the canonical
>> FFS
>> paper (McKusick et al, "A Fast File System for UNIX" [1984)]) but found no
>> mention of it.
>>
>> I did find a paper about 'fsck' (McKusick, Kowalski, "Fsck: The UNIX File
>> System Check Program") which talks (in Section 2.5. "Updates to the file
>> system") about how "problem[s] with asynchronous inode updates can be
>> avoided
>> by doing all inode deallocations synchronously", but it's not clear if
>> they're
>> talking about something that was actually done, or just saying
>> (hypothetically) that that's how one would fix it.
>>
>> Is is possible that the changes to the file system (e.g. the way free
>> blocks
>> were kept) made it more crash-proof?
>>
>>      Noel
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170512/b4c29ece/attachment.html>