On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 07:45:08AM +0200, Micha? G?rny wrote: > > > Rationale: the default filesystem (FFS) without WAPBL is more prone to > > > data loss. > > > > It is not, unfortunately. We had WAPBL on by default some time back > > and eventually switched it off. > > > > The problem is that because it still doesn't do anything about > > journaling or preserving file contents, but runs a lot faster, it > > loses more data when interrupted. > > How does that compare to the level of damage non-journaled FFS takes?
To be explicit: It is the same underly problem either way, and it is worse in practice with WAPBL than without because WAPBL ffs runs faster than non-WAPBL ffs and thus accumulates more unwritten blocks. -- David A. Holland [email protected]
