Re: Linux 2.4 future

From: Tim Connors
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 22:46:15 EST

Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said on Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:47:43 -0800:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:24:20PM -0800, jw schultz wrote:
> > xfs -- home (because of the jfs bug) Earlier tests
> > of xfs gave me horrible performance and i haven't
> > gotten around to testing since then. If this is
> > fixed without tuning i might drop jfs. Then again i
> > may drop xfs in the next upgrade if i change distros
> > and xfs isn't in-kernel.
> What about ext3? I tend to prefer ext3 since I know how it works more than
> the others, and it puts data integrity ahead of performance, which is the
> way things should be (TM).

Is it true that JFS still doesn't use a /lost+found?

The justification being that it doesn't want to stuff up the directory
structure anymore than it already supposedly is.

Personally, I think this behaviour is shit, because I would have to
reinstall from backup everytime I get an unclean shutdown (which
defeats the purpose of having journalling at all). (from memory, at
fsck time, it doesn't actually print out that many diagnostics, so I
don't know what adverse things have happened to my filesystem).

I have had plenty of problems with it. One I can think of is under
debian, after your $RANDOM mounts, it doesn't manage to do the
automatic forced fsck, so none of the filesystems get mounted. It
tries to stumble along without having mounted /usr. I have to reboot,
log in single user, and manually fsck. I don't know whther this is a
fsck.jfs or a debian deficiency.

TimC --
Animals who are not penguins can only wish they were.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at