Re: ext2 vs ext3 vs xfs vs reiserfs
Vincent Lefevre <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:16:13 -0800, nate wrote:
>> Cameron Hutchison said:
>> > The authors of XFS seem to think that because it is a journalling
>> > filesystem, a filesystem repair tool is not necessary.
>> yes this is true, I forgot about it. a few years ago I was replacing
>> a drive on a SGI box which was running XFS. The system refused to run
>> fsck. It told me something like 'you don't need to fsck a xfs volume',
>> even though the disk was failing and data was being lost at the time.
> Then, why is fsck necessary with ext3?
It frequently isn't, and the various Ext3 transition documents out
there generally advise you to reduce the fsck frequency (though not
disable it entirely, just in case). If the system has merely crashed,
fsck will recover the journal (fast) and move on with life. But IMHO
having a working fsck is vital if you have hardware problems and
things die randomly. ext3 gets away with using ext2's fsck, which
means that the tool already exists.
David Maze firstname.lastname@example.org http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell