Christopher, I appreciate your comments. At the end it goes down to personal
experience with one or the other file system. From that I can tell, that
I have
made good experience with UFS, EXT2, and XFS. I made catastrophic ex-
perience with ReiserFS (not during operation but you are a looser when
Here is one talking about ext2 corruption from power failure from 2002:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ext2+corrupt+%22power+failure%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=alvrj5%249in%241%40usc.edu&rnum=9
---
pgman wrote:
>
>
People:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:58:18PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > 1. Nobody has gone through any formal proofs, and there are few
> > systems _anywhere_ that are 100% reliable.
>
> I think the problem is that ext2 is known to be not perfectly crash
> safe. That is, fsck on reboot
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:58:18PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > 1. Nobody has gone through any formal proofs, and there are few
> > systems _anywhere_ that are 100% reliable.
>
> I think the problem is that ext2 is known to be not perfectly
As I remember, there were clear cases that ext2 would fail to recover,
and it was known to be a limitation of the file system implementation.
Some of the ext2 developers were in the room at Red Hat when I said
that, so if it was incorrect, they would hopefully have spoken up. I
addressed the com
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 09:36:21AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> So it's a tradeoff with loss of performance vs. recovery time. In
> a server room with redundant backup power supplies, "clean room"
> security and fail-over services, I can certainly imagine that data
> journalling would not be neede
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 10:58:18PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> 1. Nobody has gone through any formal proofs, and there are few
> systems _anywhere_ that are 100% reliable.
I think the problem is that ext2 is known to be not perfectly crash
safe. That is, fsck on reboot after a crash can
Bruce Momjian commented:
"Uh, the ext2 developers say it isn't 100% reliable" ... "I mentioned
it while I was visiting Red Hat, and they didn't refute it."
1. Nobody has gone through any formal proofs, and there are few
systems _anywhere_ that are 100% reliable. NASA has occasionally lost
spa
