Message-ID: <493425DC.1010008@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:58:52 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
CC: Harald Arnesen <skogtun.harald@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [ext4] Documentation patch
References: <8763m3u9kv.fsf@basilikum.skogtun.org> <20081201165700.GA26680@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081201165700.GA26680@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1242
Lines: 27

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 05:46:56PM +0100, Harald Arnesen wrote:
>>      So when comparing with a metadata-only journalling filesystem, such
>> -    as ext3, use `mount -o data=writeback'.  And you might as well use
>> +    as jfs or xfs, use `mount -o data=writeback'.  And you might as well use
> 
> data=ordered comes closest to what xfs does for quite a long time..

Agreed; that whole bit which mentions other filesystem comparisons
should probably be stricken, unless it can be
proven/demonstrated/substantiated that ext3 really does "offer higher
data integrity guarantees than most" at this point.

data=ordered ensures that stale data won't be exposed on a crash; xfs
won't do this (it'd be a security bug) and I'd be surprised if jfs or
reiserfs do either.    And it probably *should* be mentioned that
data=writeback bears this risk.

And until ext3 turns on barriers by default, I don't think it's fair to
talk too much about integrity guarantees.  :)

-Eric
--
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/