Messages in this thread | | | From | Tim Connors <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4 future | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:45:13 +1100 |
| |
Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> said on Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:47:43 -0800: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:24:20PM -0800, jw schultz wrote: > > xfs -- home (because of the jfs bug) Earlier tests > > of xfs gave me horrible performance and i haven't > > gotten around to testing since then. If this is > > fixed without tuning i might drop jfs. Then again i > > may drop xfs in the next upgrade if i change distros > > and xfs isn't in-kernel. > > What about ext3? I tend to prefer ext3 since I know how it works more than > the others, and it puts data integrity ahead of performance, which is the > way things should be (TM).
Is it true that JFS still doesn't use a /lost+found?
The justification being that it doesn't want to stuff up the directory structure anymore than it already supposedly is.
Personally, I think this behaviour is shit, because I would have to reinstall from backup everytime I get an unclean shutdown (which defeats the purpose of having journalling at all). (from memory, at fsck time, it doesn't actually print out that many diagnostics, so I don't know what adverse things have happened to my filesystem).
I have had plenty of problems with it. One I can think of is under debian, after your $RANDOM mounts, it doesn't manage to do the automatic forced fsck, so none of the filesystems get mounted. It tries to stumble along without having mounted /usr. I have to reboot, log in single user, and manually fsck. I don't know whther this is a fsck.jfs or a debian deficiency.
-- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ Animals who are not penguins can only wish they were. - 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/
| |