From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:31:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:30:52 -0400 Received: from relay01.cablecom.net ([62.2.33.101]:22276 "EHLO relay01.cablecom.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:30:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3BA1258F.5CC18A2C@bluewin.ch> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 23:30:56 +0200 From: Otto Wyss Reply-To: otto.wyss@bluewin.ch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: How errorproof is ext2 fs? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org While reading the thread about "HFS Plus on Linux?" at "debian-powerpc@list.debian.org" I had the following experience: Within an hour I had to hard reset both of my computers, first my Linux-i386 due to a complete lockup of the system while using el3diag, second my MacOS-powermac due to an not responding USB-keyboard/-mouse (what a nice coincident). Now while the Mac restarted without any fuse I had to fix the ext2-fs manually for about 15 min. Luckily it seems I haven't lost anything on both system. This leaves me a bad taste of Linux in my mouth. Does ext2 fs really behave so worse in case of a crash? Okay Linux does not crash that often as MacOS does, so it does not need a good error proof fs. Still can't ext2 be made a little more error proof? Okay, there are other fs for Linux which cope better with such a situation, but are they really more errorproof or are they just better in fixing up the mess afterwards? Could there be more attention in not creating errors instead of fixing them afterwards? O. Wyss