Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261962AbVCTCAk (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:00:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261984AbVCTCAj (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:00:39 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:22157 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261962AbVCTCAc (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:00:32 -0500 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [CHECKER] crash after fsync causing serious FS corruptions (ext2, 2.6.11) Organization: Private Site running Debian GNU/Linux In-Reply-To: <20050308123109.GA7005@thunk.org> X-Newsgroups: ka.lists.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.7.6-20040906 ("Baleshare") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.8.1 (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 03:00:30 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1818 Lines: 40 Hello Ted, In article <20050308123109.GA7005@thunk.org> you wrote: > Should we fix it today? Given that we have ext3, I'd probably answer > no. It's a known property of ext2; we've lived with it for over ten > years, and to add this would just slow down ext2 (which gets used > often as benchmark standard to aspire to), and make the ext2 codebase > more complicated. I am not too deep into FS design, however I have heared from some admins of a pretty busy server, that the allocation method of placinf file content close to the directories cause a lot of fragmentation there. So I wonder if an simple change in allocation policy could lower the problems with the fragmentation and (especially) lower the chance of blocks beeing reused too often. I might be able to get the patch, however I am not sure if it will solves or lowers the problem the checker group found. The performance impact of such a changed allocation policy is, however on the given system positive (due to decreased fragmentation). BTW: I was not directly involved here in the decision process which FS to use, however I am sure it is both related to performance and recoverability. Because all recent (journalling) filesystems XFS, Reiser and ext3 very often failed with big data loss in that environment, whereas ext2 could most often be recovered very well. So from my point of you ext2 should not be desupported. Greetings Bernd PS: i have a before/after screenshot of the filesystem in this german article. It is a pop3 server: http://itblog.eckenfels.net/archives/8-Fragmentierung.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/