All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Filesystem corruptions etc. - Which is the last safe kernel?
@ 2001-12-02 14:26 Balazs Javor
  2001-12-02 16:19 ` Alan Cox
  2001-12-02 16:53 ` Francois Romieu
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Balazs Javor @ 2001-12-02 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kernel

Hi,

I've recently subscribed to this list when someone pointed out on one of the
Debian lists, that the 2.5.15 fs corruption issue
was discussed here much earlier.
Since then I was reading this list with much interest and growing
uncertainty...

It seems to me that every kernel since 2.4.15 had serious problems where
your files can get corrupted / lost.
(Maybe even kernels before that. I just don't know.)

I run a linux machine currently with kernel 2.4.14 at home as a fileserver
where I keep all my personal files etc. on to
80GB harddrives.
I am a little bit nervouse, though...

I thought the even numbered kernel releases like 2.4.x are safe to be used,
without the risk of major data loss etc.!!!
It seems to me less and less so.

I was also eagerly waiting for the ext3 fs to be included in the kernel for
the same concern, especially that while trying to set up XFree
I often encounter complete lockups where only a hard reset helps :(
Unfortunatly I'm a bit afraid to install any kernel that inlcudes it since
they seem to cause more problems then they solve.

Now the question is, is any of the 2.4.x kernels safe to use?
And why is it that supposedly released and stable kernels can have such
serious issues?

Many thanks in advance!
best regards,
Balazs



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Filesystem corruptions etc. - Which is the last safe kernel?
  2001-12-02 14:26 Filesystem corruptions etc. - Which is the last safe kernel? Balazs Javor
@ 2001-12-02 16:19 ` Alan Cox
  2001-12-02 16:53 ` Francois Romieu
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-12-02 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Balazs Javor; +Cc: Kernel

> Now the question is, is any of the 2.4.x kernels safe to use?
> And why is it that supposedly released and stable kernels can have such
> serious issues?

Because you misunderstand the release process. Extensive QA is what the 
vendors are doing on top of releases. 2.4.16 seems fine if you want ext3.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Filesystem corruptions etc. - Which is the last safe kernel?
  2001-12-02 14:26 Filesystem corruptions etc. - Which is the last safe kernel? Balazs Javor
  2001-12-02 16:19 ` Alan Cox
@ 2001-12-02 16:53 ` Francois Romieu
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Francois Romieu @ 2001-12-02 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Balazs Javor; +Cc: Kernel

Balazs Javor <jb3@freemail.hu> :
[...]
> I run a linux machine currently with kernel 2.4.14 at home as a fileserver
> where I keep all my personal files etc. on to
> 80GB harddrives.
> I am a little bit nervouse, though...

If you trust a single disk, whatever the kernel, you have good reasons to be 
nervous.

-- 
Ueimor - currently rebuilding raid1 arrays...

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2001-12-02 16:54 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-12-02 14:26 Filesystem corruptions etc. - Which is the last safe kernel? Balazs Javor
2001-12-02 16:19 ` Alan Cox
2001-12-02 16:53 ` Francois Romieu

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.