Re: Filesystem Tests

Mike Fedyk
2003-08-06T19:08:55Z

On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:45:14PM +0200, Diego Calleja Garc?a wrote:
> El Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:04:27 -0700 Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> escribi?:
>
> >
> > Journaled filesystems have a much smaller chance of having problems after a
> > crash.
>
> I've had (several) filesystem corruption in a desktop system with (several)
> journaled filesystems on several disks. (They seem pretty stable these days,
> though)
>
> However I've not had any fs corrution in ext2; ext2 it's (from my experience)
> rock stable.
>
> Personally I'd consider twice the really "serious" option for a serious server.

I've had corruption caused by hardware, and nothing else. I haven't run
into any serious bugs.

But with servers, the larger your filesystem, the longer it will take to
fsck. And that is bad for uptime. Period.

I would be running ext2 also if I wasn't running so many test kernels (and
they do oops on you), and I've been glad that I didn't have to fsck every
time I oopsed (though I do every once in a while, just to make sure).