From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Fedyk Subject: Re: Filesystem Tests Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:08:50 -0700 Message-ID: <20030806190850.GF21290@matchmail.com> References: <3F306858.1040202@mrs.umn.edu> <20030805224152.528f2244.akpm@osdl.org> <3F310B6D.6010608@namesys.com> <20030806183410.49edfa89.diegocg@teleline.es> <20030806180427.GC21290@matchmail.com> <20030806204514.00c783d8.diegocg@teleline.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030806204514.00c783d8.diegocg@teleline.es> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Diego Calleja Garc?a Cc: reiser@namesys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com 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 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).