[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36ab91c95ce476cdf38977c8f2a8ca4c4fdf2a47.camel@interlinx.bc.ca>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 08:44:31 -0500
From: "Brian J. Murrell" <brian@...erlinx.bc.ca>
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e2scrub finds corruption immediately after mounting
On Tue, 2024-01-09 at 21:31 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> AHA! This is an ext2 filesystem, since it doesn't have the
> "has_journal" or "extents" features turned on:
This is very odd. I haven't (intentionally) created a ext2 filesystem
since ext3 became available. :-)
Moreover /proc/mounts says it's an ext4 filesystem:
/dev/mapper/rootvol_tmp-almalinux8_opt /opt ext4 rw,seclabel,relatime 0 0
Do ext2 filesystems actually mount successfully and quietly when
mounted as ext4? Surely if one asks to mount an ext2 filesystem as
ext4 mount should fail and complain, yes?
Is https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/UpgradeToExt4 still
considered accurate, in terms of an in-place upgrade of ext2 to ext4
being sub-optimal?
Is metadata locality the only thing you don't get with an in-place
upgrade? If so, how important is that, really?
> Thanks for the
> metadump, it was very useful for root cause analysis.
NPAA. Thank-you very much for your time and analysis on this issue.
Cheers,
b.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists