From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse To: jmrobert5@mchsi.com In-Reply-To: <041420041712.17158.34@mchsi.com> References: <041420041712.17158.34@mchsi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1081965021.6169.19.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:50:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Losing inodes in DOC2000 w/ext2 fs? List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 17:12 +0000, jmrobert5@mchsi.com wrote: > I have been having an issue with a ext2 fs on a DOC2000. If I overwrite a file > being marked as used by a process (such as a lib), the file is cached and then > later flushed at a reboot. But then there are many unused inodes hanging > around. The result is my flash upgrades leave many inodes marked as being used, > using more space. This is a symptom of improper shutdowns with a non-journalling file system. The space taken by these inodes should be reclaimed when you fsck, surely? > Is this another effect that is talked about in the FAQ? Or the real question, > is this a file system issue, or an MTD doc driver issue? The FAQ leads me to > believe its a ext2 issue. Using ext3 would solve it, at a high cost. Because ext3 does journalling at the block device layer, it means all metadata changes are written _twice_ to the flash. > Will using JFFS2 solve this problem? Yes. We need to update the new DiskOnChip driver to handle bad blocks (and preferably hardware ECC) first, but I've had this working. -- dwmw2