lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
To:	Pavel Machek <>
cc:	Ric Wheeler <>, Theodore Tso <>,
	Florian Weimer <>,
	Goswin von Brederlow <>,
	Rob Landley <>,
	kernel list <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Pavel Machek wrote:

>>>> I don't object to making that general statement - "Don't hot unplug a
>>>> device with an active file system or actively used raw device" - but
>>>> would object to the overly general statement about ext3 not working on
>>>> flash, RAID5 not working, etc...
>>> You can object any way you want, but running ext3 on flash or MD RAID5
>>> is stupid:
>>> * ext2 would be faster
>>> * ext2 would provide better protection against powerfail.
>> Not true in the slightest, you continue to ignore the ext2/3/4 developers
>> telling you that it will lose data.
> I know I will lose data. Both ext2 and ext3 will lose data on
> flashdisk. (That's what I'm trying to document). But... what is the
> benefit of ext3 journaling on MD RAID5? (On flash, ext3 at least
> protects you against kernel panic. MD RAID5 is in software, so... that
> additional protection is just not there).

the block device can loose data, it has absolutly nothing to do with the 

>>> "ext3 works on flash and MD RAID5, as long as you do not have
>>> powerfail" seems to be the accurate statement, and if you don't need
>>> to protect against powerfails, you can just use ext2.
>> Strange how your personal preference is totally out of sync with the
>> entire enterprise class user base.
> Perhaps noone told them MD RAID5 is dangerous? You see, that's exactly
> what I'm trying to document here.

a MD raid array that's degraded to the point where there is no redundancy 
is dangerous, but I don't think that any of the enterprise users would be 

I think they will be surprised that it's possible that a prior failed 
write that hasn't been scrubbed can cause data loss when the array later 

David Lang
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists