[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1735237152.20120607163955@eikelenboom.it>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:39:55 +0200
From: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix the free blocks calculation for ext3 file systems w/ uninit_bg
Thursday, June 7, 2012, 4:10:51 PM, you wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 04:01:16PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>
>> BTW: Is there any (real) advantage to recreate the FS using the ext4's flex_bg instead of converting the ext3 to ext4 and using ext3 uninit_bg ?
>>
> It speeds up e2fsck times, and it allows for more contiguous free
> space in the file system. So yes, there is an advantage to using a
> native ext4 file system --- but of course that's a pain in the tuckus
> for people with large RAID arrays. Which also explains why we were
> mainly seeing this bug reported with people using large RAID devices;
> those are the people who are most likely to want to do an
> upgrade-in-place, because it's too painful to recreate and then copy
> the data. Which is fine; one of the major features of ext4 is to be
> able to support upgrades-in-place from ext3.
Ok thx for the info and the fix !
--
Sander
> Unfortunately, while I had native (unconverted) ext3 file systems in
> my test matrix, I didn't have converted ext3 file system formats in my
> regular regression test suite script. That is going to be fixed
> shortly....
> - Ted
--
Best regards,
Sander mailto:linux@...elenboom.it
--
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