From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:34:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20090829213432.GC1375@ucw.cz> References: <20090824212518.GF29763@elf.ucw.cz> <20090829100558.GH1634@ucw.cz> <200908291522.07694.rob@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Rob Landley Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200908291522.07694.rob@landley.net> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Sat 2009-08-29 15:22:06, Rob Landley wrote: > 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. Agreed. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html