[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: can I use ext4 now?



Mike Castle wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Rick Pasotto<rick@niof.net> wrote:
mount -t ext4 -o nodelalloc /dev/sdc1 /s3

Leave off the -t ext4 and it should mount, though as ext4dev.  Or use
-t ext4dev.


There are some known bugs with the kernel you're using, hence all of
the recommendations for newer kernels (that also switch from ext4dev
to ext4).

However, if you just want to play with it, you could do that.

Personally, I have about 4TB in ext4dev, but it's all stuff that, if I
lost it, I'd be annoyed, but not loose anything important.

mrc




I built a system with ext4 about a month ago. I had some massive fragmentation after moving data back to the system. I ended up making a huge mistake with some permissions requiring a reinstall and have since walked away from ext4. It was a Sid/2.6.30.1

You might want to take a look at the kernel wiki. Seems there are some known problems at the moment with Debian.

http://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Howto


#######################################################################

For people who are running Debian

In Debian Lenny (Testing), the following current packages provide ext4 support:

    * ext4dev module in the linux-image package (2.6.26-10)
    * e2fsprogs (1.41.3-1)

It should be noted that the stock 2.6.26 ext4 has problems with delayed allocation and with filesystems with non-extent based files. So until Debian starts shipping a 2.6.27 based kernel or a 2.6.26 kernel with at least the 2.6.26-ext4-7 patchset, you should mount ext4dev filesystems using -o nodelalloc and only use freshly created filesystems using "mke2fs -t ext4dev". (Without these fixes, if you try to use an ext3 filesystem which was converted using "tune2fs -E test_fs -o extents /dev/DEV", you will probably hit a kernel BUG the moment you try to delete or truncate an old non-extent based file.)

#########################################################################


Reply to: