Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:21:11 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |