Re: Linux 2.6.29

Pavel Machek
2009-03-29T19:16:18Z

Hi!

> > Actually ext2 is more reliable in ext3 -- fsck tells you
> > about errors on parts of disk that are not normallly used.
>
> No. ext2 is not more reliable than ext3.
>
> ext2 gets way more errors (that whole 5s + 30s thing), and has no
> "data=ordered" mode to even ask for more reliable behavior.
>
> And even if compared to "data=writeback" (which approximates the ext2
> writeout ordering), and assuming that the errors are comparable, at least
> ext3 ends up automatically fixing up a lot of the errors that cause
> inabilities to boot etc.
>
> So don't be silly. ext3 is way more reliable than ext2. In fact, ext3 with
> "data=ordered" is rather hard to screw up (but not impossible), and
> the

Well, ext3 is pretty good, and if you have reliable hardware&kernel,
so all your unclean reboots are due to powerfails, it is better.

If you have flakey ide cable, bad disk driver, non-intel flash storage
or memory with bit flips, you are better with ext2 -- it catches
problems faster. Periodic disk check makes ext3 pretty good,
unfortunately at least one distro silently disables. Pavel

--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures)