lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 24 Mar 2009 12:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
FromLinus Torvalds <>
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 
it.

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.

			Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-24 20:31    [W:5.937 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans