Re: Linux 2.6.29

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > Actually ext2 is more reliable in ext3 --  fsck tells you
> > about errors on parts of disk that are not normallly used.
> 
> No. ext2 is not more reliable than ext3.
> 
> ext2 gets way more errors (that whole 5s + 30s thing), and has no 
> "data=ordered" mode to even ask for more reliable behavior.
> 
> And even if compared to "data=writeback" (which approximates the ext2 
> writeout ordering), and assuming that the errors are comparable, at least 
> ext3 ends up automatically fixing up a lot of the errors that cause 
> inabilities to boot etc.
> 
> So don't be silly. ext3 is way more reliable than ext2. In fact, ext3 with 
> "data=ordered" is rather hard to screw up (but not impossible), and
> the 

Well, ext3 is pretty good, and if you have reliable hardware&kernel,
so all your unclean reboots are due to powerfails, it is better.

If you have flakey ide cable, bad disk driver, non-intel flash storage
 or memory with bit flips, you are better with ext2 -- it catches
 problems faster. Periodic disk check makes ext3 pretty good,
 unfortunately at least one distro silently disables.  Pavel

--
 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures)
 http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/