Am 30.08.2016 um 23:59 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann > <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> the journal does not add any data integrity benefits at all. It just >> makes it more likely that the fs is in a sane state if there is a crash. >> Likely. Not a guarantee. Your data? No one cares. >> > That depends on the mode of operation. In journal=data I believe > everything gets written twice, which should make it fairly immune to > most forms of corruption.
nope. Crash at the wrong time, data gone. FS hopefully sane. > > f2fs would also have this benefit. Data is not overwritten in-place > in a log-based filesystem; they're essentially journaled by their > design (actually, they're basically what you get if you ditch the > regular part of the filesystem and keep nothing but the journal). > >> If you want an fs that cares about your data: zfs. >> > I won't argue that the COW filesystems have better data security > features. It will be nice when they're stable in the main kernel. > it is not so much about cow, but integrity checks all the way from the moment the cpu spends some cycles on it. Caught some silent file corruptions that way. Switched to ECC ram and never saw them again.
