lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Filesystem Tests
Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:34:10PM +0200, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
> > El Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:06:37 +0400 Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> escribi?:
> >
> > > I don't think ext2 is a serious option for servers of the sort that
> > > Linux specializes in, which is probably why he didn't measure it.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because if you have a power outage, or a crash, you have to run the
> filesystem check tools on it or risk damaging it further.
>
> Journaled filesystems have a much smaller chance of having problems after a
> crash.

Journalled filesytems have a runtime cost, and you're paying that all the
time.

If you're going 200 days between crashes on a disk-intensive box then using
a journalling fs to save 30 minutes at reboot time just doesn't stack up:
you've lost much, much more time than that across the 200 days.

It all depends on what the machine is doing and what your max downtime
requirements are.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.104 / U:3.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site