[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
> With ext2 after a system crash you need to run fsck. With ext4, fsck
> isn't an issue,

Bah. A corrupt filesystem is a corrupt filesystem. Whether you have to
fsck it or not should be a secondary concern.

I personally find silent corruption to be _worse_ than the non-silent one.
At least if there's some program that says "oops, your inode so-and-so
seems to be scrogged" that's better than just silently having bad data in

Of course, never having bad data _nor_ needing fsck is clearly optimal.
data=ordered gets pretty close (and data=journal is unacceptable for
performance reasons).

But I really don't understand filesystem people who think that "fsck" is
the important part, regardless of whether the data is valid or not. That's
just stupid and _obviously_ bogus.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-24 20:31    [W:0.527 / U:1.564 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site