Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] fresh install questions

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Casey Harkins <charkins AT upl.cs.wisc.edu>
  • To: Ryan Abrams <ryan.abrams AT attbi.com>
  • Cc: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>, bluebird AT optushome.com.au, sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] fresh install questions
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:41:53 -0500 (CDT)

IIRC, ext3 is the only of the three that journals data portions of the
filesystem. Reiser and XFS only journal the file metadata (name, size,
inodes, perms).

-casey

On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Ryan Abrams wrote:

> That is an absolutely ridiculous way to handle files in a modern file
> system. To the point that if it's true, I suggest no one use XFS.
>
> The whole point of journaling is that it keeps a journal of what it's doing,
> so that interruptions don't break things. So if XFS moves the pointer, it
> should have a journal entry saying where it was moved from. If the file isnt
> properly closed, the journal should revert it back to it's old space.
> Otherwise the whole advantage is lost.
>
> Basically, if you have a journaling file system that zeros out the whole
> file if it's open when you crash, you need a different file system...
> Because that one's on crack.
>
> Course, it may have been an old bug they fixed. :)
>
> -Ryan
>
> On 7/25/02 4:00 AM, "Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ" <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
> wrote:
>
> > bluebird AT optushome.com.au said:
> >
> >> That's interesting, I thought that a major advantage of
> >> journaling file systems like Reiser & XFS was there ability
> >> to recover from sudden crashes.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Joel
> >
> > Well, the problem in the case of XFS is with open files. I don't
> > know the internals well enough to comment on why they're suddenly
> > replaced with binary zeros. I suspect it's because when it opens a
> > file, it preallocates a space for it and sets all the appropriate
> > pointers to the new place on disk.
> > They recover faster in the sense that fsck has very little work to
> > do by comparison. They don't necessarily recover better.
> > With this in mind, I haven't had that problem with XFS for a good
> > long while. About 5 months or so of constant use have gone by without
> > problems.
> >
> > -Phil/CERisE
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Discuss mailing list
> > SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page