[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CHECKER] crash after fsync causing serious FS corruptions (ext2, 2.6.11)
Hello Ted,

In article <> you wrote:
> Should we fix it today? Given that we have ext3, I'd probably answer
> no. It's a known property of ext2; we've lived with it for over ten
> years, and to add this would just slow down ext2 (which gets used
> often as benchmark standard to aspire to), and make the ext2 codebase
> more complicated.

I am not too deep into FS design, however I have heared from some admins of
a pretty busy server, that the allocation method of placinf file content
close to the directories cause a lot of fragmentation there. So I wonder if
an simple change in allocation policy could lower the problems with the
fragmentation and (especially) lower the chance of blocks beeing reused too

I might be able to get the patch, however I am not sure if it will solves
or lowers the problem the checker group found.

The performance impact of such a changed allocation policy is, however on
the given system positive (due to decreased fragmentation).

BTW: I was not directly involved here in the decision process which FS to
use, however I am sure it is both related to performance and recoverability.
Because all recent (journalling) filesystems XFS, Reiser and ext3 very often
failed with big data loss in that environment, whereas ext2 could most often
be recovered very well. So from my point of you ext2 should not be


PS: i have a before/after screenshot of the filesystem in this german
article. It is a pop3 server:
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 14:11    [W:0.153 / U:4.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site