[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: ext3 vs resiserfs vs xfs
On Nov 07, 2001  16:00 +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> I just set up a RedHat 7.2 box with ext3, and after a few tests/chrashes,
> I see no difference at all. After a chrash, it really wants to run fsck
> anyway.

If you are getting a real* fsck for an "ext3" filesystem there are two

1) You actually have ext2, not ext3 - check /proc/mounts to be sure.
2) After 20 (by default) crashes, ext3 filesystems are fsck'd anyways.
This is NOT because ext3 is bad/unreliable, but because hardware,
RAM, kernels can be bad. Use "tune2fs -c 50" to change this interval
to every 50 mounts. It is a bad idea to turn it off completely.

(*) Note that e2fsck WILL run on each boot, but will only recover the journal
and clean up orphan inodes. That will take < 2 seconds, and is not a sign
that something is wrong with the filesystem.

> I've tried ReiserFS before, with no fsck after chrashes - is this
> because ReiserFS is better, or is it more like a hope-it's-ok-thinkig?

The latter - Hans and other reiserfs folks acknowledge that reiserfsck
is NOT safe enough to run on each boot, so they don't suggest running it
unless you have a problem. e2fsck IS very good, so it can run on each
boot. There are still lots of problems reported with reiserfs, and Hans
acknowledges that many of them are due to memory/hardware/kernel problems,
so it IS still a good idea to run fsck periodically at boot, but reiserfsck
cannot do that yet.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.231 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site