Re: norecovery option for ext3

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>]

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2009-11-20, at 07:46, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Jan Kara wrote:
>>>  I've tried to test noload/norecovery option of ext3 and I've found
>>> it simply does not work. The filesystem does not even mount.
> 
>>>  Given that nobody used the option (OK, some googling shows that
>>> somebody tried to use it in *2.4.9* kernel and it didn't work even
>>> there - Stephen Tweedie comments that it's an obsolete option meant
>>> for use during fs development) and seeing how badly corrupted the
>>> filesystem is when you don't replay the journal, I'd just remove the
>>> option. Any opinions?
>>
>> Oh, sigh.  Sorry, didn't actually, er, test it, since I was just
>> adding an alias for the option... bleah.
>>
>> I think we should fix it; there are cases when you may want to mount
>> that way, I think - for example, otherwise there is no way at all to
>> mounta block device which is marked readonly...
> 
> 
> Won't this require implementing "no journal" mode for ext3?  Seems like
> a lot of effort, when ext4 does the same thing (i.e. they could just
> mount the filesystem "-t ext4 -o norecovery" if they really, really need
> to do that).

I don't see why it would need nojournal mode; you'd have to:

mount -o ro,norecovery

anyway, and if it's ro the journal should be non-operational anyway right?

(Jan, did you mount -o norecovery or -o ro,norecovery in your tests?)

-Eric

> Cheers, Andreas
> -- 
> Andreas Dilger
> Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
> Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
>