Re: ext3

[Nagy Gabor <linux42@freemail.c3.hu>]

On 01-Dec-10 10:40, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> OTOH, there is a little cognitive dissonance in having a journaling
> filesystem and keeping data in memory longer: one is to increase
> reliability at the cost of performance, the other decreases reliability
> in return for greater performance.[1]

Actually, I don't think so. When I had ext2, a power failure (like
battery drained) meant a corrupt filesystem, files/directory structures
damaged, bad free block counts, number of inode links, files in
lost+found.

With a journaling system, the stability of the fs is granted. Data, i.e.
the contents of files can be lost, but I don't care. What I care, is
next time I will be able to boot, and files that I did not write will
not be damaged.

If hd spun down, and I loose half hour's typing, too bad. But I will
type that in again. If the fs dies, I can't rewrite it from scratch. Of
course, if the data I write is important enough, I can always save, and
then issue a sync command.

Gee

Ps: Am I right, and there's no Reply-To header?