Bill Campbell wrote: <snip>
Which leads to the question of why ext3, if it is a "true" journaling filesystem, still has the requirement of enforcing by default, the max mount counts for running fsck? Yes it can be disabled by running tune2fs -c0 but this shouldn't be necessary. There's also the issue of running ext3 under LVM which doesn't perform fsck's properly due to the fact that fsck tries to access the partition via the LVM device listed in /etc/fstab rather than using the device the kernel recognizes such as /dev/sda. This causes the buffer cache to get out of sync, effectively eliminating the benefits of a journal. This is where ext3 really comes up short in the filesystem debates, especially when compared to XFS, and as long as it continues the need to retain the hooks into ext2, those limitations and liabilities will remain. Joe Linux may never be concerned, nor have any need to be about issues like this, but they still exist nonetheless.I think that ext3 offers something that XFS doesn't, journalling of the data as well as the directory metadata. I found this from the postfix mailing list: http://www.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb/postfix/ext3.shtmlBill --
--
Andrew Mathews
---------------------------------------------------------------------
10:10am up 1 day, 23:31, 2 users, load average: 6.23, 6.15, 6.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want to bore you, but there's nobody else around for me to bore.
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
