From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Boldi Subject: Re: Good, recent FS comparison? Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:55:26 +0300 Message-ID: <200509221655.26824.a1426z@gawab.com> References: <6d5bedd8050915131148b8108a@mail.gmail.com> <200509220034.42284.a1426z@gawab.com> <20050922121423.GA30182@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20050922121423.GA30182@mail.shareable.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jamie Lokier Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux RAID Mailing List List-Id: linux-raid.ids Jamie Lokier wrote: > 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. > > 2.4.26, 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? I saw this at least once on 2.4.18. A forced fsck on reboot fixed it. 2.4.31 looks ok. -- Al