From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:10:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20090826131028.GB1370@ucw.cz> References: <20090824205209.GE29763@elf.ucw.cz> <4A930160.8060508@redhat.com> <20090824212518.GF29763@elf.ucw.cz> <20090824223915.GI17684@mit.edu> <20090824230036.GK29763@elf.ucw.cz> <4A932B18.1020209@redhat.com> <20090825093414.GB15563@elf.ucw.cz> <4A94ACDF.30405@redhat.com> <20090826111751.GC26595@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Rik van Riel , Ric Wheeler , Theodore Tso , Florian Weimer , Goswin von Brederlow , Rob Landley , kernel list , Andrew Morton , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, rdunlap@xenotime.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, jack@suse.cz To: david@lang.hm Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org >>> The metadata is just a way to get to my data, while the data >>> is actually important. >> >> Personally, I care about metadata consistency, and ext3 documentation >> suggests that journal protects its integrity. Except that it does not >> on broken storage devices, and you still need to run fsck there. > > as the ext3 authors have stated many times over the years, you still need > to run fsck periodicly anyway. Where is that documented? I very much agree with that, but when suse10 switched periodic fsck off, I could not find any docs to show that it is bad idea. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html