[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c354edc90807270452w4039bb29i778548aceee6f049@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:52:51 +0000
From: "Peter Meier" <meiepeter@...il.com>
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Trying out 2.6.26-ext4-3
Hi once more,
looking around further, I spotted this patch in the patch queue:
ext4_journal_credits_fix_for_writepages.patch
Again, I'm not a file system hacker, but if I understand the situa-
tion correctly, this patch aims to correct the number of credits
that write activity will try to reserve for a transaction in certain
situations and when using delayed allocation. I think this patch
gets it wrong in some way, and as a result tries to reserve an
amount of credits that far exceeds the maximum transaction
size for an ordinarz 128 MB journal, or maybe this hints at a
larger problem with delayed allocation of some kind.
So, it seems my options for continuing today's installation
activities are to try 2.6.26-ext4-3 but with the above patch re-
verted, or use 2.6.26-ext4-3 as is but disable delayed alloca-
tion via the mount option.
I'm very unsure about the ramifications of either. If I revert the
patch, will I get data corruption from having no solution to the
problem it attempts to fix? If I disable delayed allocation, will
my FS lose some magic I can't get back at a later date when
I renable it again? Or is delayed allocation purely a "runtime
feature" with no effects on the on-disk format?
Greetings,
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists