Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:26:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:26:08 -0500 Received: from THANK.THUNK.ORG ([216.175.175.163]:56974 "EHLO thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 16:24:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 15:05:24 -0500 From: Theodore Tso To: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ext3 vs resiserfs vs xfs Message-ID: <20011107150524.A489@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: ; from roy@karlsbakk.net on Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 04:00:55PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 04:00:55PM +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > hi > > What's coolest/best/worst of ext3, ReiserFS and XFS? > I just set up a RedHat 7.2 box with ext3, and after a few tests/chrashes, > I see no difference at all. After a chrash, it really wants to run fsck > anyway. It will run fsck after a crash, but the fsck simply runs the journal on ext3 filesystems that were uncleanly mounted. So the fsck will run very quickly, *unless* the kernel had detected some kind of filesystem error, and had set the "the filesystem has errors" flag, in which case the full fsck check will be run. If you're seeing a full fsck (i.e., a run which takes over a minute and where you see the progress bar) after a crash consistently, you might want to check and make sure that you've really converted the filesystem in question to ext3..... - Ted - 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/