From: Sander Eikelenboom Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix the free blocks calculation for ext3 file systems w/ uninit_bg Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:39:55 +0200 Message-ID: <1735237152.20120607163955@eikelenboom.it> References: <1339077153-13212-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1511035441.20120607160116@eikelenboom.it> <20120607141051.GB2864@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ext4 Developers List , Kees Cook To: Ted Ts'o Return-path: Received: from static.121.164.40.188.clients.your-server.de ([188.40.164.121]:35232 "EHLO smtp.eikelenboom.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760966Ab2FGOkA (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2012 10:40:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120607141051.GB2864@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 4:10:51 PM, you wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 04:01:16PM +0200, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: >> >> BTW: Is there any (real) advantage to recreate the FS using the ext4's flex_bg instead of converting the ext3 to ext4 and using ext3 uninit_bg ? >> > It speeds up e2fsck times, and it allows for more contiguous free > space in the file system. So yes, there is an advantage to using a > native ext4 file system --- but of course that's a pain in the tuckus > for people with large RAID arrays. Which also explains why we were > mainly seeing this bug reported with people using large RAID devices; > those are the people who are most likely to want to do an > upgrade-in-place, because it's too painful to recreate and then copy > the data. Which is fine; one of the major features of ext4 is to be > able to support upgrades-in-place from ext3. Ok thx for the info and the fix ! -- Sander > Unfortunately, while I had native (unconverted) ext3 file systems in > my test matrix, I didn't have converted ext3 file system formats in my > regular regression test suite script. That is going to be fixed > shortly.... > - Ted -- Best regards, Sander mailto:linux@eikelenboom.it