From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268799AbUHLVKB (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:10:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268796AbUHLVJk (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:09:40 -0400 Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:15305 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S268800AbUHLVGo (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:06:44 -0400 Subject: Re: New concept of ext3 disk checks From: Lee Revell To: Bernd Eckenfels Cc: linux-kernel In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1092344835.1090.74.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:07:15 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 14:58, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > I am not sure why the softupdates are so reliable, that no fsck is needed Softupdates were introduced to enhance performance by batching and deferring disk operations. I belive that initially, performance was the only consideration in determining what actually got written to disk when. All the BSD/OS manuals I read at my last job warn against enabling softupdates because data loss could occur. Someone later realized that if you batch the disk operations in a way that considers the atomicity of the filesystem operations being implemented, softupdates can help *ensure* data integrity. This is a pretty recent development I think. Lee