On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 10:39:25AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 09:32 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Is there any practical way I could try to address this? I would rather
> > have the files truncated, or even re-linked to /lost+found or something,
> > than have them contain bad data. I also never seemed to encounter this
> > behavior with either ext2 or ext3. Was I just lucky, or is there
> > something fundamentally different about JFS?
>
> I'm not sure how I would address this in jfs. I don't know about ext3,
Well, in ext3 one has some options (mount(8) quoted below). When I
mount it data=ordered, things seem fine. General wisdom holds that this
is the preferred way to go. It sounds like JFS is approximating
data-journal.
data=journal / data=ordered / data=writeback
Specifies the journalling mode for file data. Metadata is
always journaled. To use modes other than ordered on the root
file system, pass the mode to the kernel as boot parameter, e.g.
rootflags=data=journal.
journal
All data is committed into the journal prior to being
written into the main file system.
ordered
This is the default mode. All data is forced directly
out to the main file system prior to its metadata being
committed to the journal.
writeback
Data ordering is not preserved - data may be written into
the main file system after its metadata has been commit-
ted to the journal. This is rumoured to be the highest-
throughput option. It guarantees internal file system
integrity, however it can allow old data to appear in
files after a crash and journal recovery.
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
