Dean On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 09:44 +1100, Dean Hamstead wrote: > From what i have read JFS may not be in the kernel much longer. Dont > know, worth someone filling me in. Now you have me worried. Were did you read this? I was thinking moving some of my partitions to JFS, but if it is going to be removed from the kernel... I had problems with a XFS partition on my MythTV box. A friend had said that he had encountered problems with his MythTV system and recommended that the video store be on it's own disk as the IO of a PVR stressed the disk more than normal usage. Seamed sensible, so I did just that. Two years later sure enough I got IO errors on the video store. Bad blocks with a high logical block address, IIRC. I put the disk to one side for later testings. It took me a while to testing the thing, but I wanted to find out just how badly damaged it was. I ran badblocks(8) with the full read/write tests. No errors. Clean bill of health. I re-formatted it and re-installed it in the MythTV box and it's been running fine for 6-12 months now. I'm waiting to see if it fails again. Maybe this was a one off glitch. Maybe its a bug in the XFS code, or in the kernel disk subsystem. Unless/until it happens again I can't investigate to be sure. But I want a backup plan and if it did prove to be XFS I would want to switch to another fast file system and JFS is my next choice. So where did you read of this removal of JFS from the kernel? Why it it being considered? And how credible is this? Those two little sentences have really opened a new can of worms. Steve -- Steve Dobson Sushido, n.: The way of the tuna.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part