From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Re: [ext3-users] To compare Linux journalised filesystem, part II. Date: 24 Oct 2002 13:27:31 -0400 Message-ID: <1035480451.30133.192.camel@tiny> References: <3DB823AA.6010405@eprocess.fr> <20021024170826.GI28822@clusterfs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20021024170826.GI28822@clusterfs.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Andreas Dilger Cc: Fabien Combernous , ext3-users@redhat.com, jfs-discussion , reiserfs , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 13:08, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Oct 24, 2002 18:45 +0200, Fabien Combernous wrote: > > +--------+------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > | quotas | Again "Y" is not aqual. ext3 accept quota only on data-journaled | > > | | filesystems, but all other journaled filesystem don't have data | > > +--------+------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > Granted that I have never used quotas, so it is possible that I > am incorrect. However, my understanding is that yes, you do need > data-journaled quota files to ensure that your quota tables don't miss > some operations after a crash. However, you can separately select > data journaling for files in ext3 (via chattr), even if the rest of > the filesystem is using data=ordered (the default). data journaling on the quota files is better. Some quota updates (dqput calling commit_dquot) are done only by clear_inode(), which should happen outside the transaction and won't be grouped with the actual metadata change. -chris