[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:0.020 / U:32.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site