From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: Corrupted/unreadable journal: reiser vs. ext3
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:23:20 +0300
Message-ID: <3E52B258.80509@namesys.com>
References: <3E4AA902.86F15815@interface-ag.com> <b2h7dc$ipp$1@satsuki.furryterror.org> <3E4C392A.2070909@namesys.com> <20030214111829.A21849@namesys.com> <20030214031316.L22930@schatzie.adilger.int> <20030214131746.H10351@namesys.com> <20030214035034.M22930@schatzie.adilger.int> <3E4CF04A.2030904@namesys.com> <20030214120630.O22930@schatzie.adilger.int> <3E4D4129.8040103@namesys.com>            <20030215153710.A1723@schatzie.adilger.int> <200302182117.h1ILHHhC000658@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-12831-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <200302182117.h1ILHHhC000658@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com>, Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>, Zygo Blaxell <eazgwmir@umail.furryterror.org>, reiserfs-list@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