Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29
Date: Tuesday 24th March 2009 19:55:28 UTC (over 7 years ago)
Linus Torvalds wrote: > But I really don't understand filesystem people who think that "fsck" is > the important part, regardless of whether the data is valid or not. That's > just stupid and _obviously_ bogus. I think I can understand that point of view, at least: More customers complain about hours-long fsck times than they do about silent data corruption of non-fsync'd files. > The point is, if you write your metadata earlier (say, every 5 sec) and > the real data later (say, every 30 sec), you're actually MORE LIKELY to > see corrupt files than if you try to write them together. > > And if you write your data _first_, you're never going to see corruption > at all. Amen. And, personal filesystem pet peeve: please encourage proper FLUSH CACHE use to give users the data guarantees they deserve. Linux's sync(2) and fsync(2) (and fdatasync, etc.) should poke the block layer to guarantee a media write. Jeff P.S. Overall, I am thrilled that this ext3/ext4 transition and associated slashdotting has spurred debate over filesystem data guarantees. This is the kind of discussion that has needed to happen for years, IMO.