Re: ext3 vs reiserfs 3.6
A google search...
On 7/28/06, Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Lennart Sorensen <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:12:43AM -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Weird! That's supposed to be the very thing reiserfs *is* good at.
> No actually reiserfs is rather fragile since it has essentially no
> redundancy in the meta data, unlike ext2/ext3 which have redundant
> superblocks and such. I have had major file corruption with reiserfs
> 3.6 when a system was turned of in the middle of a write, since (at
> least at the time) reiserfs would journal the meta data changes, and
> then just start overwriting the old contents of the file, and at boot it
> would update the meta data from the journal, and you end up with a
> partially updated file. ext3 on the other hand gives you either the
> version prior to the write, or the completely updated version, at least
> in my experience. I imagine with larger writes with some programs even
> ext3's ordered mode can't help you.
> Len Sorensen
Ordered mode makes sure that any data in the file is what was written
to it. It never fails.
But it doesn't help if you have a big file, start overwriting it with
new data and then turn of the power. You will end up with the file
partialy overwritten with the new data and then the old data remains.
So better stick with appending or creating a new file to replace the
old and such, don't rewrite files.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
Engañarse por amor es el engaño más terrible;
es una pérdida eterna para la que no hay compensación
ni en el tiempo ni en la eternidad.
Jaime Ochoa Malagón
Tel: (55) 52 54 26 10