On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:45:14PM +0200, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
> El Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:04:27 -0700 Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> escribi?:
>
> >
> > Journaled filesystems have a much smaller chance of having problems after a
> > crash.
>
> I've had (several) filesystem corruption in a desktop system with (several)
> journaled filesystems on several disks. (They seem pretty stable these days,
> though)
>
> However I've not had any fs corrution in ext2; ext2 it's (from my experience)
> rock stable.
>
> Personally I'd consider twice the really "serious" option for a serious server.
I've had corruption caused by hardware, and nothing else. I haven't run
into any serious bugs.
But with servers, the larger your filesystem, the longer it will take to
fsck. And that is bad for uptime. Period.
I would be running ext2 also if I wasn't running so many test kernels (and
they do oops on you), and I've been glad that I didn't have to fsck every
time I oopsed (though I do every once in a while, just to make sure).
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:34 EST