[rfc] use ext3 instead of ext2

Dagmar d'Surreal dagmar.wants at nospam.com
Sun Jul 18 19:17:17 PDT 2004


On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 21:40 +0200, Matthias B. wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:30:31 +0100 Matthew Burgess
> <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> 
> > That's my understanding too.  With a journalled FS there is no need to
> > fsck the drive _at all_ as everything is journalled.  
> 
> That is a common misconception. Journaling filesystems can still get
> corrupted, e.g. by bugs in the fs code. So there always needs to be a tool
> to do a complete integrity check and possible repairs. But you don't
> usually need to run this after every unclean shutdown. But you should run
> it occasionally. 

On the other side of this issue, the few times I've needed fsck to be
run on ext3 it's completed _really_ fast.  If nothing else, fsck seems
to be able to get clue from the journal to know things aren't actually
broken when a filesystem is unmounted improperly.

There's really no reason to avoid ext3.  It functions as a transparent
replacement for ext2.  Even if you screw up and mis-mount an ext3
filesystem as ext2, it will _still_ work fine.  It'll just need to have
the journal put back before you can mount it as ext3 again (i.e., a
quick tune2fs -j /dev/blah and you're done).

-- 
The email address above is phony because my penis is already big enough, kthx.
   AIM: evilDagmar  Jabber: evilDagmar at jabber.org (<-not an email address!)




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list