Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 15:37:10 MST, Andreas Dilger said:
>
>  
>
>>I guess the shortcoming in the ext2 case is that it counts mounts and
>>not crashes.  If it were counting the number of times the filesystem
>>was uncleanly shut down instead of normal shutdowns, would that be more
>>acceptable?  The reason I'm still interested in crashes, even if they
>>are not filesystem-related crashes, is because there had to be _something_
>>which caused a crash (bad code, bad hardware, whatever), and once you have
>>any driver corrupting memory the chance that it is also corrupting filesystem
>>memory exists.
>>    
>>
>
>ext2/3 *intentionally* counts mounts rather than crashes.
>
>It's possible for a filesystem to get non-noticably corrupted without
>a crash (remember the Linux 2.4.11 mangle-on-shutdown bug?)  - it's stuff
>like that (and slowly failing media) that it tries to catch by counting
>mounts.
>  
>
Making users who often reboot to windows run fsck more often because of 
it is not very clever, in fact, it is just annoying, and I remember it 
well from my old ext2 days.

-- 
Hans