From: Rob Landley Subject: Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:22:06 -0500 Message-ID: <200908291522.07694.rob@landley.net> References: <20090824212518.GF29763@elf.ucw.cz> <20090829100558.GH1634@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: david@lang.hm, Ric Wheeler , Theodore Tso , Florian Weimer , Goswin von Brederlow , kernel list , Andrew Morton , mtk.manpages@gmail.com, rdunlap@xenotime.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net To: Pavel Machek Return-path: Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]:45417 "EHLO grelber.thyrsus.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752020AbZH2UWJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:22:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090829100558.GH1634@ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Saturday 29 August 2009 05:05:58 Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2009-08-28 07:49:38, david@lang.hm wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2009, Rob Landley wrote: > >> Pavel's response was to attempt to document this. Not that journaling > >> is _bad_, but that it doesn't protect against this class of problem. > > > > I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the statement that journaling > > doesn't protect against this class of problems, but Pavel's statements > > didn't say that. he stated that ext3 is more dangerous than ext2. > > Well, if you use 'common' fsck policy, ext3 _is_ more dangerous. The filesystem itself isn't more dangerous, but it may provide a false sense of security when used on storage devices it wasn't designed for. Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds