Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*the\s+thing\s+with\s+the\s+binary\s+zeroes\s*$/: 40 ]

Total 40 documents matching your query.

1. the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:18:29 +0100
I am a very happy user of XFS on servers and workstations alike. Nevertheless, I have also been bitten by the "binary zeroes problem"... which may not be a problem but a feature, but it's hard to tel
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00085.html (10,545 bytes)

2. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:00:30 +0100
[Sorry but that was really explained multiple times. Read the archives again for more details. Here just quick explanation.] The new file size (=metadata) has been already flushed to disk, but the ac
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00086.html (9,925 bytes)

3. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:15:46 +0100
also sprach Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> [2005.02.11.1400 +0100]: I am only one of many people that are unable to find answers to questions I posed in my email. Also, I am only one of many people who are s
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00087.html (10,859 bytes)

4. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:29:08 +0100
I've read explanations similar to mine several time on the list and also given them occasionally myself. You could in theory by grepping the block device and searching for the data (it hasn't been ph
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00088.html (10,247 bytes)

5. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:35:58 +0100
also sprach Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> [2005.02.11.1429 +0100]: Again, not to be read as a personal attack, but your explanation is not what I was looking for. It added very little to the description I i
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00089.html (11,207 bytes)

6. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:55:10 +0100
Well, it's the full story. Nothing to add. It can't. The pointers from the inode to the extents with the data are overwritten at this point. The only good "fix" probably would be to make XFS flush me
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00090.html (10,811 bytes)

7. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:06:20 +0100
also sprach Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> [2005.02.11.1455 +0100]: Thank you for taking your time to help me understand the whole picture then! Would it be possible to extend the FAQ with some more informat
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00091.html (11,332 bytes)

8. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:25:18 +0100
Sounds more like a urban legend. -Andi
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00092.html (10,145 bytes)

9. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: David J N Begley <d.begley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:48:43 +1100 (EST)
Are you talking here about implementing an "ordered journal" (similar to ext3) where data is written before metadata updates, or simply reducing the time between data/metadata flushes without imposin
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00094.html (10,181 bytes)

10. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:59:12 +0100
Ordered data just guarantees that there is never a window where the machine crashes that you can see "raw" disk blocks after recovery. "Raw" means blocks that are not under control of the file system
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00095.html (11,465 bytes)

11. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:07:18 +0100
also sprach Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> [2005.02.12.1259 +0100]: But that would solve my problem. How does XFS guarantee this? Didn't you just say it is impossible to get at the raw data again as XFS null
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00096.html (11,586 bytes)

12. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:53:12 +0100
No, I didn't say that. I said it overwrites the meta data pointing to the file data in the truncate. -Andi
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00097.html (10,421 bytes)

13. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: David J N Begley <d.begley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 12:12:58 +1100 (EST)
Agreed, "raw" data in the above sense is most definitely a security hole and something to be avoided. This, I believe, is where we get to the heart of people's confusion/concern regarding XFS - the m
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00099.html (11,764 bytes)

14. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: Daniel Moore <dxm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:15:34 +1100
XFS' journaling is there to protect the _metadata_. It seems a little harsh to give you back zeroed files after a crash, but the point is that although your new data may not be as intact as you'd hop
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00100.html (12,191 bytes)

15. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author: Olaf Frączyk <olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:29:06 +0100
Hi, The problem is that people don't understand the difference between the data and metadata journaling. As XFS doesn't do data journaling the whole discussion is pointless. If someone wants data jou
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00102.html (11,074 bytes)

16. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:16:02 +1100 (EST)
[...] Errm, no and no - believe it or not full file contents/data journalling is not always behind the question (in my case, it's already assumed to not be a part of the equation). The fact that this
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00104.html (15,693 bytes)

17. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:38:30 +0100
also sprach David J N Begley <d.begley@xxxxxxxxxx> [2005.02.14.1116 +0100]: Well spotted and stated. Is this actually a recommendation? It makes perfect sense, but I have been using XFS on every work
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00105.html (12,263 bytes)

18. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:16:00 +1100
No, not at all. I have been happily using xfs on my workstation since 2001 and have never had any files containing binary zeros, despite various power failures.
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00108.html (10,800 bytes)

19. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:09:32 +0100
also sprach Jason White <jasonjgw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005.02.15.0016 +0100]: Well, same here. It seems like others have had different experiences; I do not want to advocate a filesystem for laptop/work
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00109.html (10,936 bytes)

20. Re: the thing with the binary zeroes (score: 1)
Author:
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:52:02 +1100
I would be perfectly happy to recommend it for both laptops and workstations. I would argue that the binary zeros phenomenon is not worth worrying about.
/archives/xfs/2005-02/msg00113.html (10,209 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu