[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: scary ext2 filesystem question
    "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> writes:

    > Well, the confusing part is that fsck reports some size/count changes
    > (I don't remember the exact error message right now), something like
    > inode number x, was y, should be z, corrected. Now, if I write down
    > that inode numbers, and find corresponding files after fsck finishes,
    > they are in many cases corrupted (maybe in all cases?). I was always
    > wondering, what would happen if fsck DID NOT repair the files. After
    > all, it knows that older value.
    > What likely happened is that part of the metadata (an indirect block,
    > containing a block reference) got written out to disk, while another
    > part of the metadata (the inode, containing the size of the file)
    > didn't make it out to disk. In this case, e2fsck errs on the side of
    > not losing data, which means that instead of throwing away the newly
    > allocated block, it will expand the size field in the inode.

    Thanks for a nice explanation. I thought it was something like that,
    but wasn't sure. Now I see that ext2 is really as good as it can get.
    Not that I doubted that before, but fsck was kind of suspicious to
    me. :)

    > Now, what that UPS can't do is prevent me from "improving" kernel
    > sources and making mistakes along a way. If you by any chance get hold
    > of a model with such functionality, please inform me fast where should
    > I go and buy it. :)
    > Well, you could simply not make mistakes. <grin>


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.020 / U:22.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site