[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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

> > 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.049 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site