From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison? Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:14:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20050922121423.GA30182@mail.shareable.org> References: <6d5bedd8050915131148b8108a@mail.gmail.com> <200509162258.37730.a1426z@gawab.com> <20050921153703.GB19896@mail.shareable.org> <200509220034.42284.a1426z@gawab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux RAID Mailing List , linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Return-path: Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:41939 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030277AbVIVMO2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:14:28 -0400 To: Al Boldi Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509220034.42284.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Al Boldi wrote: > Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Al Boldi wrote: > > > ext3 is rock-solid! > > > > If only. Recently I had a system come up after a power cycle with a > > directory where reading any file in that directory gives an I/O error. > > The disk is fine, and it's using ext3 in ordered mode, with IDE > > write-caching disabled to be sure. > > 2.4 or 2.6? > > In 2.4 try a reboot and force an fsck before mounting. 2.4.26, uclinux - it's an embedded device. Doing an fsck before mounting would be an unacceptable boot-time delay. Why do you suggest that, specifically for 2.4? Is there a known problem with 2.4 and ext3? Thanks, -- Jamie