|
From: Ian J. <ia...@da...> - 2003-04-09 19:37:35
|
Szakacsits Szabolcs writes ("Re: [Linux-NTFS-Dev] Implementing ntfsimage"):
> I like simplicity. Your way seems to be the winner. If restoreimage can
> create a sparse file of the original image [metadata] that't fine with me
> (needed for debug, test, development). Now this is fast, reliable and
> works.
OK.
> BTW, I strongly recommend, send your purposal for comments, review to the
> linux-fsdevel mailing list
> http://www.kernelnewbies.org/mailinglist.php3
I've done that.
> Anton's decision but I support it. My wishes are only
>
> - must have the consistency check. My experiences from ntfsresize
> feedbacks is that there are many corrupted NTFS out there. chkdsk fixed
> them nicely. In general no point and dangerous to backup a corrupted
> NTFS (unless it's for recovery). This can be taken from my version if
> you don't have [actually I'm planing to make it a library function].
I don't have a per-se objection to this, but I don't want to put
anything in the ntfsimage.c file that's not related to the image
stream generation. If there's a library function to do it,
excellent. Otherwise I'll punt on that for now.
(I'm using `utils_mount_volume'. Maybe, if you want things to do
consistency checks, it should be called from there ?)
> - restoreimage should be able to create the image as a sparse file. I
> don't think this would be a big issue.
Absolutely, that'll come out in the wash. By default, restoreimage
will not write the absent clusters, instead seeking past them in the
output `file'.
> - bugfree :)
:-).
[sparse files]
> Yes, I thought the situation became a bit better in the last 8 years or
> so ... I was wrong :(
Yes, I think it has got worse (from your point of view). Naturally I
think this is an improvement :-).
Ian.
|
