Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:16:53 +0200 | From | Otto Wyss <> | Subject | Re: How errorproof is ext2 fs? |
| |
> > This leaves me a bad taste of Linux in my mouth. Does ext2 fs really behave so > > worse in case of a crash? Okay Linux does not crash that often as MacOS does, so > > That sounds like it behaved well. fsck didnt have enough info to safely > do all the fixup without asking you. Its not a reliability issue as such. > Well it could also be the fact that almost no activity was going on on both systems.
> > it does not need a good error proof fs. Still can't ext2 be made a little more > > error proof? > > Ext3 is a journalled ext2. Its in the 2.4-ac kernel trees. Reiserfs in the > -ac tree also supports big endian boxes. > At least ext2 and probably all the journalling fs lacks a feature the HFS+ from the Mac has (bad tongues might say "needs"), to keep open files without activity in a state where a crash has no effect. I don't know how it is done since I'm no fs expert but my experience with my Mac (resetting about once a month without loosing anything) shows that it's possible.
I'd rather like to see this feature appear in one fs for Linux (preferable ext2). I think it's always better to not have error instead of fixing them afterwards.
O. Wyss - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |