Re: How errorproof is ext2 fs?

[Otto Wyss <otto.wyss@bluewin.ch>]

> > 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
> 
> That sounds like it behaved well. fsck didnt have enough info to safely
> do all the fixup without asking you. Its not a reliability issue as such.
> 
Well it could also be the fact that almost no activity was going on on both
systems. 

> > it does not need a good  error proof fs. Still can't ext2 be made a little more
> > error proof?
> 
> Ext3 is a journalled ext2. Its in the 2.4-ac kernel trees. Reiserfs in the
> -ac tree also supports big endian boxes.
> 
At least ext2 and probably all the journalling fs lacks a feature the HFS+ from
the Mac has (bad tongues might say "needs"), to keep open files without activity
in a state where a crash has no effect. I don't know how it is done since I'm no
fs expert but my experience with my Mac (resetting about once a month without
loosing anything) shows that it's possible.

I'd rather like to see this feature appear in one fs for Linux (preferable
ext2). I think it's always better to not have error instead of fixing them afterwards.

O. Wyss