Re: ext3 Re: Sarge with ext3, reiserfs (3/4?) or xfs?
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 00:36 -0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > hi ya
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> >
> > > take ext3. ext3 is reliable, and doesn't hickup when there is a badblock
> >
> > sure it does ... ext2 is underneath ext3... so its painful
>
> That's a bit of an ambiguous statement.
>
> ext3 uses the ext2 disk structures, but it is my understanding
> that the ext3 *code* has nothing at all to do with ext2.
than please explain why and how you can convert from ext2 to ext3
just by "undoing" the journaling to run in ext2 instead of ext3
and also convert from ext2 to ext3 ..
where both can be converted from x into y without any major work
and no reformatting
> fsck.ext3 on a partition when *either* of these 2 situations occur:
> (a) it was not cleanly unmounted
> OR
> (b) the partition has not been fsck'ed in X number of days.
>
> Choice (b) is optional, and thus can be disabled.
choice (a) can thus trivially disabled too from not doing its checks
however ... if one does disable "ext2/ext3" fs checking during
bootup, that is the exact equivalent of disconnected
the radiator/oil warning light on your car
if you do NOT answer "Y" to its bootup sequence to do fscking
in 5 seconds, than you're heading down the road to data loss
( sometimes it asks, sometimes it can recover without asking )
Not allowing the system to do it's sanity checking is asking
for dissaster, but you're free to do aa you wish/desire
if ext3 does do its replay of the journal .. that's good,
as its doing what its supposed to be doing
c ya
alvin
Reply to: