> A quick Google of ext3 fsck did not yield obvious examples of why people > needed to run fsck on ext3, though it did remind me that by default ext3 runs > fsck just for the hell of it every N (20?) mounts - could that have been part > of what you were seeing?
I'm not sure if that's what Robert meant, but that's been my experience with ext3. In fact that little behavior caused a rather lengthy bit of downtime on another company in our same colo facility this week as a result of a facility required reboot. Frankly, ext3 is an abortion of a filesystem. I'm somewhat surprised its being used as a counterexample of journaling filesystems being no less reliable than ZFS. XFS or ReiserFS are both better examples than ext3. The primary use case for end-to-end checksumming in our environment has been exonerating the storage path when data corruption occurs. Its been crucial in a couple of instances in proving to our DB vendor that the corruption was caused by their code and not the OS, drivers, HBA, FC network, array etc. Best Regards, Jason _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
