[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903241218130.3032@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
David Rees <drees76@...il.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> With ext2 after a system crash you need to run fsck. With ext4, fsck
> isn't an issue,
Bah. A corrupt filesystem is a corrupt filesystem. Whether you have to
fsck it or not should be a secondary concern.
I personally find silent corruption to be _worse_ than the non-silent one.
At least if there's some program that says "oops, your inode so-and-so
seems to be scrogged" that's better than just silently having bad data in
it.
Of course, never having bad data _nor_ needing fsck is clearly optimal.
data=ordered gets pretty close (and data=journal is unacceptable for
performance reasons).
But I really don't understand filesystem people who think that "fsck" is
the important part, regardless of whether the data is valid or not. That's
just stupid and _obviously_ bogus.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists