linux-ext4 - Re: Why isn't ext2 deprecated over ext4?

lists.openwall.net		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: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:57:22 +0100
From: Reindl Harald <h.reindl@...lounge.net>
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why isn't ext2 deprecated over ext4?



Am 21.02.24 um 16:48 schrieb Theodore Ts'o:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:39:54PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> you shouldn't create filesystems with a on-disk format that don't support
>> 64bit timestamps no matter how small the filesystem is
>>
>> the arguments on this list where "such a small filesystem isn't expected to
>> be still used in 2038" which is nonsense in case of a /boot FS in a virtual
>> machine
>>
>> our whole servers already survived 16 years and 30 dist-upgrades
> 
> This is an individual system administrator's decision.  The defaults
> will not create file systems with 128 byte inodes.

it was *not* my decision in 2019 after create a small /boot partition to 
get a welcome message at boot that it will not survive 2038

> However, there are situations where it *does* make sense to use ext4
> file systems that can not express timestamps past 2038.  For example,
> at my employer, 128 byte inodes on HDD's because we do *not* preserve
> file system images across hardware upgrades. 

*this* should be an individual decision instead create outdated nonsense 
these days

> Using 128 byte inodes
> means that there are 32 inodes per 4k inode table block, as opposed to
> only 16 inodes if you are using a 256 byte inode.  There are
> performance benefits if you are concerned about reducing the 99.99%
> latency on heavily loaded disks, and reducing the TCO costs for bytes
> and IOPS for my employer's cluster file system.

irrelevant on a very small partition

> Furthermore, from an ecological perspective in terms of power and
> cooling perspective, even *if* hard drives would survive for over 8-10
> years, it would be irresponsible to keep those systems in service.  So
> my employer knows what it is doing when it uses explicit mke2fs
> options and/or mke2fs.conf settings to create file systems with 128
> byte inodes.

in my world drives don't matter and the systems are moved between 
hardware because hardware don't matter at all

what exactly is irresponsible in keeping a up-to-date system in service 
which was originally installed 10 or 15 years ago? this isn't microsoft 
windows and i haven't installed any Linux from scratch in my whole lifetime

in fact i created a small partition without touching mke2fs.conf and it 
ended with a filesystem not surviving past 2038

Fedora for sure didn't invent the nonsense in "mke2fs.conf" falling back 
to such pervert settings for very small martitions