On Dec 18, 2007 6:40 PM, Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2007, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > On Dec 18, 2007 2:56 PM, Sergey Kobzar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > [...] > > > > > - ext3 looks slow some time > > > > The defaults are slow, but you can change them and make it OK. Not > > super fast, but OK. Check out > > /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ext3.txt, and tweak the > > obvious options. > > > > data=writeback and commit=300 in particular works fine in my VAIO > > laptop. And we're talking about laptops, so a sudden loss of power is > > not something that could happen at any moment. > > there is still 'didn't resume correctly' or 'froze and had to hit reset' which > is as harmfull as power loss.
It's been *months* since I had any trouble with suspend/resume with my laptop; but if you are really that paranoid you can always edit /usr/lib/hal/scripts/linux/hal-system-power-suspend-linux and /usr/lib/hal/scripts/linux/hal-system-power-hibernate-linux and do a 'sync' before the suspend; problem solved. If you use gnome-power-manager (or the HAL-aware KDE equivalent) to suspend/resume, of course; if you do it by other means I'm sure you can put the sync command in some other place. (And actually, I'm pretty sure HAL does the sync by itself; it would be idiotic not to do it.) And BTW, AFAIK the same thing happens with *all* the journaled filesystems, but the data=ordered and commit=5 as default in ext3 is because the developers are more concerned with data integrity. Journaled filesystems are not meant to guarantee data integrity; they guarantee *filesystem* integrity. Meaning: you can lost some of your work, but the filesystem will be OK and no fsck is required (in the old days that could be *REALLY* slow). With ext3 using data=writeback, commit=300 and you get a failed resume and you (or HAL) did't sync before resuming, you at mos lost five minutes of work; everything else will be a-OK. Which is the point of the journaled filesystems, of course. But that's only my advice: years ago I lost a chapter of my BS thesis thanks to ReiserFS. I'm sure they got way better (because a lot of folks use it), but if there is something you can say about ext2/ext3, is that they are the *most* stable filesystems available. That's the reason of the "slow" defaults (data=ordered and commit=5); the developers guarantee that, out of the box, ext3 will guarantee filesystem integrity (as all the journaled filesystems do) AND it will protect your data at all cost. With data=writeback and commit=300, ext3 behaves as all the other journaled filesystems (AFAIK; I haven't checked the progress in filesystems in a while): it only guarantees the filesystem integrity, meaning you *could* (it would be difficult anyway) loss 5 minutes of work. See your options; but I'm using Linux since 1996, and Gentoo since 2003, and I have *never* loss data with ext2 and ext3. With ext3 being journaled, of course. And I use suspend all the time in my laptop. In my desktop I use the ext3 default options; my UPS is old and is not working that well, and besides my desktop uses SATA and is *stupidly* fast, so you don't see the performance penalty. Good luck; let us know what you decide. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM
