View Single Post
Old 10-14-2020, 12:48 AM   #10
ownedbycats
Custom User Title
ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ownedbycats ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
ownedbycats's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,012
Karma: 75555555
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Device: Kobo Libra H2O, formerly Aura HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNSB View Post
I got bitten by this a couple of decades back where a backup solution used very long filenames for the backup indexes and crashed when the number of backup index entries was about 7500 though that volume was less than 50% full.
I got burned by the power interruption once or twice. If the power goes out while something's being modified it can leave it in a half-modified state and scramble up the file system itself. Most modern filesystems use journaling and transaction processing to prevent this, so usually you only lose whatever data was being written.

I think there's a "transaction-safe FAT" somewhere about but I'm not sure if it's actually used anywhere.

Last edited by ownedbycats; 10-14-2020 at 12:54 AM.
ownedbycats is offline   Reply With Quote