[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1309269520.3093.1574.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:58:40 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, 615998@...s.debian.org
Cc: "Moffett, Kyle D" <Kyle.D.Moffett@...ing.com>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Sean Ryle <seanbo@...il.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#615998: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Repeatable "kernel
BUG at fs/jbd2/commit.c:534" from Postfix on ext4
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 11:36 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 27-06-11 23:21:17, Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
[...]
> > Please correct me if this is horribly horribly wrong:
> >
> > no journal:
> > Nothing is journalled
> > + Very fast.
> > + Works well for filesystems that are "mkfs"ed on every boot
> > - Have to fsck after every reboot
> Fsck is needed only after a crash / hard powerdown. Otherwise completely
> correct. Plus you always have a possibility of exposing uninitialized
> (potentially sensitive) data after a fsck.
>
> Actually, normal desktop might be quite happy with non-journaled filesystem
> when fsck is fask enough.
[...]
With no journal, there is a fair risk that fsck cannot recover the
filesystem automatically (let alone the actual data). And normal users
should never have to suffer questions from fsck.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists